RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism

RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

zenny -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 2:27:07 PM)
While I comprehend what you say for most it is irrelevant - citizen and politician alike. As the Dems are currently in good order in the House and Senate it doesn't matter. My point was that the debate of this issue, as with all others transcends retarded labels. As to he who pointed out the technical lack of truth of my statement, how often have you seen a politician do anything more than appologize (even if that is done) for libel and slander? For mention of the first amendment - political speech seems in most cases to come off as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, save it effects a nation, not a hundred or so people. Well, a better analogy would be false advertising - I personally have no problem with people yelling fire in a crowed theater, I'll look for the signs, if there are none I'm not going to stampede. Either way, as many have pointed out in previous threads, your rights stop well in advance of violating mine be it destroying my ability to chose or taking my life. To those who cannot understand, much less comprehend my mention of choice. Let me ask you these questions. Can our current hospital system support preventative care for everyone? If so, can it support preventative care AND everything else for everyone? Is running a government and a business the same? How long can a government go into dept vs. a business? Now, go to your local hospital, then travel to an inner city hospital. Assuming you don't live inside a city of course. Then sample the service of both. Which do you prefer? Lastly, what do you think will happen to service and quality of service if you get a sudden and constant influx of people? I'll not even go into the fact that even under the proposed bill you can still be dropped, and in most cases just as easily, if not more so than with private. Something for ya'll to think about. matta.

Musicmystery -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 2:31:44 PM)
Instead of making a point, you've presented a laundry list of issues. Where would one start? All of them would need independent threads. You've also merely swept aside the counterargument. And the point you are trying to make is a red herring--itself irrelevant to the argument. I'll pick just one misconception, since you've cited it frequently: the misapplication of "shouting fire."

stella41b -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 3:06:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Now, go to your local hospital, then travel to an inner city hospital. Assuming you don't live inside a city of course. Then sample the service of both. Which do you prefer? Apologies, but I couldn't understand the rest of the post, so I will stick with the bits I can understand. Not sure how it is in the States, but here in the UK there's not really that much difference between the standards of care of most hospitals, whether they're in the inner city or not. quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Lastly, what do you think will happen to service and quality of service if you get a sudden and constant influx of people? Our hospitals do fine with both a sudden and constant influx of people. This kind of makes me wonder about some of the objections here. Is it the fear of what is going to happen when poor people gain better access to health care? Is the fear of being treated alongside poor people? Or is it more the case that some of you Americans don't like each other much?

cornflakegirl -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 4:20:22 PM)
Stella, don't you know the poor is catching? It rubs off.

Lucylastic -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 5:50:13 PM)
Regarding private insurance.......Here for regular joes.(kids and over 65 is different) Ohip doesnt cover eye examinations or glasses, Ohip doesn't cover the price of medication, Ohip doesn't cover dental unless its emergency or non cosmetic(i-think). However, lot of the bigger companies in Canada offer private insurance, hubby has it and it covers all of them. they set limits on how much is covered and how often you can claim, but it is there. My hubby and my two kids that are working in vastly different areas of the market, have different coverage deails but its basically the same. And with regard to Stellas post to Zenny, Spot on again Stella Lucy

rulemylife -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 6:07:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Perhaps the poster (no profile, gender unknown) meant truth in advertising laws. That, however, would be a First Amendment issue. Political speech is protected, regardless of truth. That's not what he/she said though. It is a very narrow protection meant to apply in certain circumstances, not a blanket immunity that allows politicians exemption from the law.

zenny -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 6:16:07 PM)
Cited it frequently? If you call referencing it twice to get one point across 'frequently' perhaps you should try politics, no? Also, it is not a misapplication but an application that is hardly used; somewhat akin to using effect as a verb. stella41b, if you get a cold, without going to the emergency room, how long does it take you to see a physician? Also, no, it has nothing to do with the poor just as it has nothing to do with political affiliation. It's a fluids problem really. But, most won't get that - what happens when you have more cars on the road than it can handle? Everything slows down. Same principle here. I'm talking in response to that which I have quoted. That is hardly a red herring. Of course calling one where it isn't present is.

Musicmystery -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 6:20:44 PM)
quote: Cited it frequently? If you call referencing it twice to get one point across 'frequently' perhaps you should try politics, no? Also, it is not a misapplication but an application that is hardly used; somewhat akin to using effect as a verb. Yes, I shouldn't have chosen "frequently." I meant the repetition in your post. I realized that afterwards. My bad. The application, though, is indeed frequently used--so frequently that Dershowitz published that popular, often reprinted article about its misapplication that you didn't read, as your misapplication is precisely the same.

rulemylife -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 6:25:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Also, no, it has nothing to do with the poor just as it has nothing to do with political affiliation. It's a fluids problem really. But, most won't get that - what happens when you have more cars on the road than it can handle? Everything slows down. Same principle here. So then, you are saying that it is a good thing we have so many uninsured people because it lessens the burden on the system. So, by that argument we should make health care even harder to obtain and free up the system so we can concentrate on those more valuable to society?

zenny -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 6:51:18 PM)
You would be incorrect in that assumption. The article goes on about the history of the phrase and how it wasn't a good analogy for the situation. However, it is a decent analogy in my usage as it, in it's typical usage illustrates the fear of and apparent reality that the voting population is itself inept. My counter further goes on to represent my thought that while something to be conscious of it isn't worth more than a casual glance for the assurance of the norm. Unfortunately, to explain all the nuance of my use of it would take more than I'm willing to put forth. I trust you get the point though. rulemylife, Did I say that? I merely pointed out the base stupidity of trying to put five gallons of milk in a two gallon container. Find a proper container then have at it. But as Musicmystery pointed out, there is more than just this one facet to this situation. Stop trying to be so emotional and reactive in something that demands logic and deliberation.

Musicmystery -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 6:56:05 PM)
quote: However, it is a decent analogy in my usage as it, in it's typical usage illustrates the fear of and apparent reality that the voting population is itself inept. It's a typical misusage, particularly in overlooking the falsely raising the alarm and the difference between a warning that requires an immediate response to a mortal danger and mischaracterizing a position on an issue as such. But if you prefer, straw man fallacy works just as well.

zenny -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 8:29:30 PM)
Keep on the red herring. Next time you quote an article at least make the attempt to comprehend it.

stella41b -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 8:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny stella41b, if you get a cold, without going to the emergency room, how long does it take you to see a physician? I don't know, as I don't go to see a doctor when I have a cold but follow appropriate medical advice, and that is to stay at home, drink plenty of fluids and stay warm. There's nothing really a doctor can do to treat a cold and why should I expose others, including the more vulnerable such as the elderly, babies, by sitting in the waiting room among them? In fact the best person to see, if you really need to, when you have a cold isn't a doctor, but a pharmacist.

Musicmystery -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 8:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Keep on the red herring. Next time you quote an article at least make the attempt to comprehend it. Ah! The insult instead of the argument ploy. The fallback position of the false analogy instead of the argument ploy. Trouble is, the trouble remains. Example: Jack: Are you for or against this bond issue? Jill: Well, I just think these ballot initiatives are just getting out of hand--the whole thing's rediculous! Now, Jill may or may not be correct, but it doesn't matter--she hasn't addressed the merits of the bond issue, just her pet beef about ballot initiatives generically. It's a red herring. And you're Jill. But my experience is that once the "thinker" has fallen to the insult stage, continuing is pretty much pointless. Ride over.

Esinn -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/15/2009 11:42:59 PM)
I have done my best to catch up. It seems everyone is having a fairly good self-moderated discussion. My intention is not to derail the train. If the objective is just to persuade the other side to understand your point of view regardless of the outcome a response might cause an Amtrak disaster. I understand Clinton was derailed: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/obama.clinton.health.care/ quote: Republicans decried the plan as overcomplicated and used it to tag the administration as big government-loving, tax-and-spend liberals It was called, "Hillarycare" now "Obamacare" - nothing new under the sun. 1990-1994 congress was republican. Isn't the stage different now? There is already quite a bit of support for this bill from the public & medical community at large. Does it really matter how much hollaring republicans do or the amount of disinformation out there? The disinformation has already been handled great. http://mediamatters.org/research/200908030046 - I know you have seen that. Bush did numerous things without much(any) public support. Healthcare reform is not something we desire it is something we need. When it comes down to getting this pushed through it does not really matter what republicans think? They will cry fox misinformation all day long - it seems He did promise bipartisanship and he has tried. But it seems it will not work so who cares - push it through. Or is there a serious threat here? Honestly it seems the republicans are only getting a small percent caught up in their lynch mob anyway.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/16/2009 1:27:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Also, no, it has nothing to do with the poor just as it has nothing to do with political affiliation. It's a fluids problem really. But, most won't get that - what happens when you have more cars on the road than it can handle? Everything slows down. Same principle here. The problem you have at the moment is the same, except it is that the cars do not have enough petrol to get on the road because the petrol is given to a select few. If the UK can do it (no where near as wealthy as the US) then you can.

Brain -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/16/2009 3:19:53 AM)
Multiple Republican Leaders Voted In 2003 For Measure Similar To Current �Government Euthanasia� Bill The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog GOP officials John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter, Johnny Isakson, and Chuck Grassley all voted in 2003 for a measure very similar to the one in the current House health care bill they now suggest in various ways could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia. As Time’s Amy Sullivan reported late last night, Grassley voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, which — ready? — provided coverage for “counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 bill and the House Dem one that’s inspired the “euthanasia” talk, Sullivan reports, is that the earlier one “applied only to terminally ill patients.” Let’s go back and check the roll call on that 2003 vote to see who else voted for it. Turns out Boehner, McCotter and Isakson all did, too. Boehner and McCotter, as you know, have said that Medicare coverage of end of life consultations could lead to “government encouraged euthanasia.” While Isakson supports end of life counseling generally, he opposes the House bill because it allows “government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct end-of-life counseling.” Grassley said people are “right to fear” that government could “decide when to pull the plug on grandma.” Fun postscript: GOP Rep. John Mica of Florida voted for the 2003 bill — and last week he denounced the current House measure for creating Medicare-funded “death counselors.” *************************************** Update: Edited to fix a quote from Isakson’s office. Update II: Boehner’s office responds that the comparison is �idiotic.” http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/multiple-republican-leaders-voted-in-2003-for-measure-they-now-decry-as-government-euthanasia/

stella41b -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/16/2009 5:29:47 AM)
'The fool who knows that he is a fool is for that very reason a wise man; the fool who thinks that he is wise is called a fool indeed. .' (Dhammapada 64)

Lorr47 -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/16/2009 5:55:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse If the government takes over health care, the private companies will be put out of business. There will be no other option,,,, Jim Moran a Virginia Democrat pointed out that the present "profit motive" in the health insurance industry costs $60 billion a year. Over ten years that is $600 billion; $600 billion that does not provide direct health care benefits. Why are we so intent on providing the health care insurers a bailout when they do not need it? Should we be concerned about executives who earn up to $30 million a year? Do we really care whether the private insurers go out of business? You do; I do not.

Lorr47 -> RE: Britons defend their health care from US criticism (8/16/2009 6:07:40 AM)
quote: When it comes down to getting this pushed through it does not really matter what republicans think? They will cry fox misinformation all day long - it seems He did promise bipartisanship and he has tried. But it seems it will not work so who cares - push it through. Your reasoning is beyond reproach but I hear the killer bees starting to swarm.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875