Doctors are inherently evil, per Obama

[homeboy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

This is a common fallacy of the progressive left, presuming that egalitarian claims & the legislation they require are self-evident truths that are the fruit of ‘progress.’

All that is needed is a presumption that ‘equality’ is justification in and of itself.

 

[DC DOC]

This is a common fallacy of the progressive left, presuming that egalitarian claims & the legislation they require are self-evident truths that are the fruit of ‘progress.’

All that is needed is a presumption that ‘equality’ is justification in and of itself.

The right wing's fallacy is "failing to rigorously test their own assumptions that define the argument itself, which is the easiest trap in which to fall. Essentially, trying to impose a false assumption invariably leads to a crumbling of the whole edifice" or in this case, your argument.

Equality of Health Care services amongst Americans is justification in and of itself. The pursuit of maximum profit, regardless of the cost in lives [our current system] is not something we should follow whether you are a "progressive left" or a "conservative right".

 

[TRN1983]

Okay, just to clarify.

Lets say 0 = horrible healthcare and 100 = perfect healthcare.

By equality, do you mean that the government should intervene if the average American gets healthcare rated at an 80 and Mr. Jones gets healthcare at a 99 by stripping Mr. Jones of his healthcare priveleges and tearing him down to the 80 level because it would be impossible to lift the rest of the country to the 99 level?

 

[homeboy]

The right wing's fallacy is "failing to rigorously test their own assumptions that define the argument itself, which is the easiest trap in which to fall. Essentially, trying to impose a false assumption invariably leads to a crumbling of the whole edifice" or in this case, your argument.

What?!? This just keeps getting better.
What is that circular non-sensical statement supposed to mean?

How do I "rigorously test" the "assumption" that the US Constitution in no way guarantees equality of outcomes?

And what is this "false assumption"? That the government has no authority, other than that perceived by the Left, to impose "fairness"?

So the "ediface" of Constitutionality is a conservatively-constructed smoke screen for...what, the inability to test assumptions? Assumptions that certain things are "unconstitutional"? That makes absolutely no sense.

Equality of Health Care services amongst Americans is justification in and of itself. The pursuit of maximum profit, regardless of the cost in lives [our current system] is not something we should follow whether you are a "progressive left" or a "conservative right".

Really? Is it? Because you say so?

How is "equality of health care services amongst Americans" justification in and of itself?!? Such broad-sweeping logic requires that we accept the premise that healthcare to the extent demanded by ANY citizen is a NATURAL human right...good luck with that argument.

The opposition to government healthcare and immense national debt is HARDLY tantamount to the "pursuit of maximum profit"...such black and white logic employs a "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

Stunning.

 

[DC DOC]

Okay, just to clarify.

Lets say 0 = horrible healthcare and 100 = perfect healthcare.

By equality, do you mean that the government should intervene if the average American gets healthcare rated at an 80 and Mr. Jones gets healthcare at a 99 by stripping Mr. Jones of his healthcare priveleges and tearing him down to the 80 level because it would be impossible to lift the rest of the country to the 99 level?

First of all, that is an oversimplified analogy of the situation. No one is tearing anyone's health care privileges down, if you have health insurance and you like it, you keep it. Second, we are not trying to lift the country to a "99" or whatever that arbitrary number means to you. The bill's intent is to guarantee coverage for those that can't afford it. The quality in no way has to go down and in fact, with the research on efficiency methods proposed, quality should rise, which theoretically would lead to cuts in cost. What I meant by equality is that everyone has an opportunity to have essential health care services provided to them at a cost that they can afford and that is what the bill does.

 

[DC DOC]

The opposition to government healthcare and immense national debt is HARDLY tantamount to the "pursuit of maximum profit"...such black and white logic employs a "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

Stunning.

I would much rather have the government reform our health care system than have the insurance companies stripping our pockets. That is my opinion, and I don't care if you are a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, I want something done and this is the only way I believe it will happen. Government will have to be involved in one way or another. Reform will not spontaneously occur on it's own. We have been abused by insurance companies for far too many years.

Other than the public option and the debt we would incur (which is minute compared to the 5 trillion bush racked up over 4 years), what makes this plan so bad?

 

[TRN1983]

First of all, that is an oversimplified analogy of the situation. No one is tearing anyone's health care privileges down, if you have health insurance and you like it, you keep it.

You keep it temporarily. Even the CBO has said the insurance companies won't stay afloat. The government will put them out of business, intentionally. This is about control.

3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV

4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of

5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov

6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health

7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance

8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the

9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

From Page 16 of H.R. 3200

.....

1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—

2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in

3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific

4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without

5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same

6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the

7 Commissioner.

From Page 17 of H.R. 3200

......

23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE

24 COVERAGE.—

with BILLS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance

2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance

3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered

4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par

5 ticipating health benefits plan.

From Page 16 of H.R. 3200

Feel free to interpret that anyway you want, but I see: "yeah, keep your plan.... for a little while."

Second, we are not trying to lift the country to a "99" or whatever that arbitrary number means to you. The bill's intent is to guarantee coverage for those that can't afford it.

Then whey doesn't the government target them rather than force legislation on everyone? Reason: it's a power grab. Real health care reform would be calculated, methodical, and approached in a stepwise fashion and include tort reform as one of the primary issues to be addressed. Our system needs fixing, but it's not so broken that we should put it at tremendous risk by performing a massive experiment with it based on a healthcare bill put together in a matter of months.

The quality in no way has to go down

Yeah, that never happens when re-imbursement goes down. As we know, income earned and quality are inversely related, right?

and in fact, with the research on efficiency methods proposed, quality should rise, which theoretically would lead to cuts in cost.

That's assuming the research produces astounding results. That's a huge leap of faith.

What I meant by equality is that everyone has an opportunity to have essential health care services provided to them at a cost that they can afford and that is what the bill does.

No, this bill puts the government at the head of everything from reimbursement to (eventually) functioning as one of few (or the only) insurance option. In the process, it will cover everyone though, like you say. And, the healthy people will be happy they have insurance. However, emergency treatment for everyone will probably be worse b/c hospitals will be overwhelmed and underpaid. In addition, people will eventually be forced to accept a government plan which offers ridiculously low reimbursement rates which will likely lead to a reduction in quality and timely services offered to a huge chunk of the population. At it's most innocent level this bill is essentially tearing the the top down to build the bottom up. But, I'm much more concerned with the massive expansion of government. Nowhere in the world and at no time in history has there existed a civilization that would lead me to believe it's possible for a powerful central government to give their citizenry the freedom and liberty we were given by our founding fathers, and I feel we lose that with this bill.

 

[TRN1983]

I would much rather have the government reform our health care system than have the insurance companies stripping our pockets.

The government is far more dangerous than insurance companies.

Government will have to be involved in one way or another. Reform will not spontaneously occur on it's own.

All very true. However, the government needs to regulate, not operate.

 

[homeboy]

I would much rather have the government reform our health care system than have the insurance companies stripping our pockets. That is my opinion, and I don't care if you are a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, I want something done and this is the only way I believe it will happen.

But again, you wanting the government to reform care ISN'T justification. It's an OPINION based on a FEELING that is egalitarian in nature, and you want this feeling to be the deciding rationale for our course of action.

That is completely illogicaly.

Additionally, I'll point out that you keep arguing that government control is the only alternative to the status quo, and the only way one can reliably support that notion is on the assumption that government both a.) has the authority to do so, and b.) this particular government involvement will be the ONE exception to the rule that COSTS invariably outpace predictions and that things will somehow be more efficient because the government has "our best interest" at heart.

Other than the public option and the debt we would incur (which is minute compared to the 5 trillion bush racked up over 4 years), what makes this plan so bad?

What do you mean "other than"? Is that not reason enough to say "hold on"? Remember, Barry wanted this plan implemented in a matter of WEEKS--BEFORE the August recess...we spend more time deliberating the purchase of a used car, yet somehow resisting the push for government to stick it's foot in 1/6 our GDP is irrational?

Miminalizing the severity of governmental encroachment of healthcare by reducing the argument to "what's wrong with the public option?" is a horribly inappropriate way to approach an argument.

And, of course, back to Bush (who people on the left like to portray as the epitome of modern conservatism...which he is certainly NOT)...

First of all, the money Bush spent on Iraq & Afghanistan was REACTIONARY...it wasn't a campaign promise or adherance to doctrine.

Second, it was a temporal expenditure with no expectations that it would become a PERMANENT fixture of the American budget, as governmental health care would.

Third, the Constitutionality of making MILITARY expenditures is infinitely more justified than expenditures for the purpose of fullfilling an abstract notion of "equality" or social fairness.

Fourth, I find it EXTREMELY ironic that the spending of trillions of dollars in the past is justification for spending trillions of dollars now & in the future. Do we really need to total up all the Republican-pushed vs Democratic-pushed expenditures, as if the tally would predict who's turn it is to spend the next trillion?

 

[DC DOC]

Alright, alright. I'm throwing in the towel on this one because it is pointless to argue this, it would never end and this is very counterproductive to studying (no offense Homeboy). Plus, my wife and kids are going to resent me for being on here so much.

I would like to mention that I am married and am a father to two beautiful children. One of which was delivered while we have been on medicaid and "food stamps", we would not have been able to attend medical school without either of them. I have visited the emergency room with my son on several occasions, with minor injuries and not once has his care been jeopardized or reduced in anyway because we use government sponsored health care. My daughter's birth went with no complications, and not once was it brought up that we were insured through medicaid. I have had both private and "public" insurance and I feel, now this is my own personal voice, that our experiences with medicaid have been far superior than private, and I had a great plan through one of the top 3 insurance companies in the country.

So I am going to close by saying that, yes, I do follow what I "feel" is the responsible and morally correct thing to do. If that is illogical than so be it. I do want people that have nothing to have something, I do want those who are mistreated to be treated with dignity and respect. I do want equality, but maybe not so much in the way that you assume. There are ways to bring about equality without the hyperbole of complete egalitarianism. If that is what you "feel" defines me, from your own perspective, than by all means label me with that title. It makes no difference to me and I will not be offended. I've enjoyed the debate because you have brought up valid points, some I agree with and some I don't, and those points have caused me to investigate things further, so thank you, I appreciate it and farewell.

 

[homeboy]

Alright, alright. I'm throwing in the towel on this one because it is pointless to argue this, it would never end and this is very counterproductive to studying (no offense Homeboy). Plus, my wife and kids are going to resent me for being on here so much.

I would like to mention that I am married and am a father to two beautiful children. One of which was delivered while we have been on medicaid and "food stamps", we would not have been able to attend medical school without either of them. I have visited the emergency room with my son on several occasions, with minor injuries and not once has his care been jeopardized or reduced in anyway because we use government sponsored health care. My daughter's birth went with no complications, and not once was it brought up that we were insured through medicaid. I have had both private and "public" insurance and I feel, now this is my own personal voice, that our experiences with medicaid have been far superior than private, and I had a great plan through one of the top 3 insurance companies in the country.

So I am going to close by saying that, yes, I do follow what I "feel" is the responsible and morally correct thing to do. If that is illogical than so be it. I do want people that have nothing to have something, I do want those who are mistreated to be treated with dignity and respect. I do want equality, but maybe not so much in the way that you assume. There are ways to bring about equality without the hyperbole of complete egalitarianism. If that is what you "feel" defines me, from your own perspective, than by all means label me with that title. It makes no difference to me and I will not be offended. I've enjoyed the debate because you have brought up valid points, some I agree with and some I don't, and those points have caused me to investigate things further, so thank you, I appreciate it and farewell.

I appreciate you honesty, and though I can respect your satisfaction with Medicaid, submitting the entire public to that standard would be an egregious affront to liberty.

And not to toss gasoline on the fire, but the notion that medicaid & food stamps exist to support the "poor downtrodden medical students" is absolutely ridiculous, and I've touched on this subject in previous threads.

I'll leave it at that.