RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (Full Version)

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



Message

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:25:03 AM)

You are intentionally ignoring the point. Lack of health care does not kill you. Period.

You are intentionally making a fatuous point. Why is that? No one thinks it is witty. No one thinks it is relevant. Would you like to discuss the issue?



DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:26:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I dont understand your gibberish, perhaps you can try again in English.
Lose the fucking insurance, and get single payer national healthcare.
(innumerate...lookitup, you have no idea what it means by your usage in that miasmatic horseshit you posted).


I know what innumerate means; no need to look it up.

Which word did I use that isn't in the English language, or where did my application of English grammar fail?



mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:26:39 AM)

What exactly is the important distinction? It should be recountable in one sentence of no more than 12 words.



DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:27:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You are intentionally ignoring the point. Lack of health care does not kill you. Period.
You are intentionally making a fatuous point. Why is that? No one thinks it is witty. No one thinks it is relevant. Would you like to discuss the issue?


It is not intended to be witty.

It is a statement of fact.



mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:28:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I dont understand your gibberish, perhaps you can try again in English.
Lose the fucking insurance, and get single payer national healthcare.
(innumerate...lookitup, you have no idea what it means by your usage in that miasmatic horseshit you posted).


I know what innumerate means; no need to look it up.

Which word did I use that isn't in the English language, or where did my application of English grammar fail?



Entirely and uselessly.

Insurance is insurance is a tautology and nothing to do with anything I am saying. And no numbers have been bandied about or referred to.

So there are both your gibberishes, simple, plain, garish.



DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:31:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
What exactly is the important distinction? It should be recountable in one sentence of no more than 12 words.


The distinction is in the definition of the antagonist.





DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:35:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I dont understand your gibberish, perhaps you can try again in English.
Lose the fucking insurance, and get single payer national healthcare.
(innumerate...lookitup, you have no idea what it means by your usage in that miasmatic horseshit you posted).

I know what innumerate means; no need to look it up.
Which word did I use that isn't in the English language, or where did my application of English grammar fail?

Entirely and uselessly.
Insurance is insurance is a tautology and nothing to do with anything I am saying. And no numbers have been bandied about or referred to.
So there are both your gibberishes, simple, plain, garish.


I see. So, nothing, really.

You declare people innumerate, but respond that the answer to health insurance being part of the problem is government insurance. If you can't see how that is silly, how can you even know if someone is innumerate (notice I didn't say you were innumerate at any time). It is a more my pointing out that your credibility to call someone else innumerate is questionable.

What is single payer if not government insurance?



mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:36:44 AM)

Ah, so a distinction without a difference is now of import. Nah, don't fuckin think so, nor does anyone else who is honest and forthright.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:41:12 AM)

Desi, I'm not confusing medical insurance with malpractice insurance at all.

Just the sheer fact that medical insurance needs to cover and encompass any possibility of malpractice and the huge claims that go with it makes it impossibly expensive for an awful lot of US citizens to the point that a lot of them can no longer afford it and have to suffer the consequnces of not having it when they need it.

Cap the awards they have to cover and limit the expenses (and the mega salaries of the CEO's), then limit what they can rip-off in premiums and the whole gammut will become affordable for a whole swathe of people that can't afford it now.




thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:44:16 AM)

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri



Rights are tied to our being humans.

This is true on the whole but not the whole truth


Rights exist with or without government.

This is true on the whole but not the whole truth.

Government authority is only gained by being taken from the individual.


This is opinion unsubstantiated by any facts.
This tries to make the not so subtle shift to associate govt authority with personal rights ....Was that your intention? If not then why insert this shit at all?


Government does not give rights to citizens.

True on the whole but not the whole truth.

Rights given by government are privileges, not rights.

Why the implication that govt gives rights???No one believes that govts do that. Govts. insure that our rights are protected.
Now for some asshats who hide behind the banner of "strict construction" that claim that only the "constitutionally enumerated rights" are the only rights that those in the u.s. have. Well opinions are a lot like assholes and most everyone has one and most everyone feels that theirs works best for them. The problem we seem to be having is that some fools feel that the only the rights that anyone has are the ones enumerated in the u.s. constitution.
It has been pointed out to you that the italian constitution recognizes health care as a right. Somehow that seems to offend you...why is that?




mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:45:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I dont understand your gibberish, perhaps you can try again in English.
Lose the fucking insurance, and get single payer national healthcare.
(innumerate...lookitup, you have no idea what it means by your usage in that miasmatic horseshit you posted).

I know what innumerate means; no need to look it up.
Which word did I use that isn't in the English language, or where did my application of English grammar fail?

Entirely and uselessly.
Insurance is insurance is a tautology and nothing to do with anything I am saying. And no numbers have been bandied about or referred to.
So there are both your gibberishes, simple, plain, garish.


I see. So, nothing, really.

You declare people innumerate, but respond that the answer to health insurance being part of the problem is government insurance. If you can't see how that is silly, how can you even know if someone is innumerate (notice I didn't say you were innumerate at any time). It is a more my pointing out that your credibility to call someone else innumerate is questionable.

What is single payer if not government insurance?




That is a fucking lie, I said no such thing.

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.


If you don't know what words mean, don't use them. Nobody can glean any usefulness or intellect from such frothing imbecility as results from not having dominion whatosever in the language, and resultantly in the discourse.


You have mastered the fucking poorest example of the fallacy by amphiboly I have ever encountered, it rends the word cretinous, calling for something meta-cretinous, and I do not have a word that would scale that correctly.



thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:50:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The only way to lower costs in the US - at this time - is by getting rid of the excess costs within the system that makes a procedure high.
What exactly are those "excess costs"?


Let's see, there's excess administrative costs.

How would you solve this?

There's excess cost in inflated salaries for medical professionals who can only be licensed by a government-authorized monopoly.

Who would you prefer them to be licensed by?

There's excess costs when insurance companies own care providers.

How would you solve this?


There's excess cost because the cost of malpractice insurance is so much.

Given your stated beliefs on "personal responsibility" how would you solve this?


Need I go on?
That was the purpose of my question...you see I am interogating you as to your position.



TreasureKY -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:52:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

If you don't know what words mean, don't use them. Nobody can glean any usefulness or intellect from such frothing imbecility as results from not having dominion whatosever in the language, and resultantly in the discourse.

You have mastered the fucking poorest example of the fallacy by amphiboly I have ever encountered, it rends the word cretinous, calling for something meta-cretinous, and I do not have a word that would scale that correctly.


[sm=rofl.gif]

Ain't irony just a hoot!



mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 11:53:57 AM)

It is, if anyone here has displayed it, but you do not know what the definition of that word is obviously.

Facetious would be akin to it, and believe me, that was not facetious.



thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 12:10:44 PM)

If the US put a cap on claims so the insurance companies aren't scared shitless at paying gazillions of $$'s in claims, then put a cap on what they are allowed to charge in premiums, the whole fantasy house-of-cards would collapse into something affordable.

I wonder how that is handled in countries with socialised medicine?



mnottertail -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 12:13:26 PM)

But that also is anathema in free-market idealism. That is Ws bailout all over again.



thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 12:35:00 PM)


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Insurance is the answer to insurance being part of the problem.

And you dare claim others are innumerate.

That claim would be yours and yours alone.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 12:37:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If the US put a cap on claims so the insurance companies aren't scared shitless at paying gazillions of $$'s in claims, then put a cap on what they are allowed to charge in premiums, the whole fantasy house-of-cards would collapse into something affordable.

I wonder how that is handled in countries with socialised medicine?

Very simple.
The courts and the legal system don't allow stupidly exorbitant compensation costs.
A good example of this is the multi-billion class-action lawsuit for thalidamide victims.
In the US, the claim runs into literally billions of $'s.
In the UK, it was pruned to just a few hundred thousand $'s.

And when our insurance companies, like the banks, started ripping-off customers, they were legally curtailed about the premiums they charged.



eulero83 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 12:41:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I firmly believe the US Constitution does not authorize the US Federal Government to provide for the health care of US Citizens. No matter what the merits of an issue are, if it's not authorized by the US Constitution, there is no authority for the Federal Government to provide it. It really is that simple. And, this is not simply limited to health care, either.



Are you talking about the 10th amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

First it should be discussed if providing something is a power and not a service, second let it be the states to deal with it, if your read my posts a community with the size of a USA's county can provide all the medical procedures efficently to it's members.

edit: I'll answer the off topic in another thread later



JeffBC -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 12:50:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
People argue that health care is a right. Why is it a right? "Because lack of health care causes death and people have the right to life." [paraphrased]

Just for the record (and because I like to be the token liberal that the conservatives ignore), I don't argue that. I argue it is an aesthetic I am more comfortable with than "let them die in the streets". I would, however, be wildly in favor of anyone who is against universal health coverage who at least had the balls to say "and I understand the price of that is poor people die... and they commit crimes on the way to their death."

Charity is not an answer. Trust me, it's my day job nowadays. Charity is largely comprised of the poor helping other poor and the rich helping other rich people. Relying on charity, in my opinion, is simply punting the question.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875