RobinHood3 wrote:I was waiting for someone to start a topic on government.
The problem in the US (and I generally only talk about what happens here, because that is all they really matter to me)... in the US the Federal Gov't has gotten too large and as taken away authority and responsibilities that should remain at the local level.
At the local level we (the people) are more likely to have our voices heard.
The fact that the Federal Gov't has grown too big is natural... but it is not desireable. It is the nature of any organization to grow and to try to get more power/respect/authority etc. This is true of all organizations. Likely because these organizations are run by people.
this^ is so true. Government doesn't need to be big, it is there just to make laws so that people can't kill and steal. Healthcare is NOT an enumerated power (in the US constitution), why is the government fooling around with it? Healthcare and hospitals/doctors should be in the private sector.
About Healthcare, are you aware that all of the medical breakthroughs are developed using the "Poor" as lab rats. At the very least, the Poor should be at the front of the line, not at the back, following the Rich upper class, when it comes to Healthcare. When they start sacrificing themselves for medical trials, instead of crawling over the backs of those poor people that had no choice but to offer themselves up as lab rats, then they will be worthy of a place in the front of the line.
You ass-holes make me sick, when you shout out from behind your golden parachute insurance policies. That the poor are somehow less entitled to care, than yourself.
Pedronicus wrote:Government is...owned but the banks and no longer serves the good of the common man. Everything is corrupt, everything is bent, nothing is as it appears.
Frankly I'm surprised that Obama is getting this healthcare past all those lawyers and corporations who make far more from healthcare remaining in the hands of the private sector.
Jims never left America, so he knows no different. Strange that he has such strong views on healthcare after only experiencing only one side of the coin.
You are spot on, again Pedronicus.
But for one correction - Obama did not get his healthcare past any corporations. Healthcare remains in the hands of the private sector. Previously the private sector had a customer base that included 92% of the US population. Now they will be able to round up the remaining 18 million customers using federal police power.
The millions that big healthcare insurance corporations, like UHC, shoved into Obama's greedy, fat mouth via campaign donations will be paid back a hundred times over by all the new customers they'll be enrolling.
Three weeks after Obama's "reform" bill passed, UHC stock shares hit their highest point in a year:
Pedronicus wrote:Frankly I'm surprised that Obama is getting this healthcare past all those lawyers and corporations who make far more from healthcare remaining in the hands of the private sector.
Why are you surprised? Do you not think there is some benefit to lawyers and corporations because of the healthcare bill? Or do you think it was created purely for altruistic reasons?
Metsfanmax wrote:empirically, it is evident that humans will not sacrifice their own resources in the name of societal welfare if there is not some organizational body which requires or reminds them to do it
in denying the antecedent you are now committing a second logical fallacy
you did this previously, where you assume "Not X" implies "Not Y" just because X = y
Again, I regret can only respond to arguments based in Logic and Reason. Arguments based in other cognitive modalities are of no interest to me.
Thanks, Mesfanmax!
Yet again, you mistake an argument based on empirics for an argument based in logic. I am making the argument that in cases where there was no organizational body, society collectively failed to engage in social enterprises.
I'm beginning to believe you don't really believe in all that communist BS you spout, since you can't seem to defend it properly...
No one suggested there would be no organizational body in a Proudhon mutualist society.
Again, you are committing a logical fallacy by denying the antecedent.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:The millions that big healthcare insurance corporations, like UHC, shoved into Obama's greedy, fat mouth via campaign donations will be paid back a hundred times over by all the new customers they'll be enrolling.
This is a grossly unwarranted claim. Presumably the reason that those customers were not enrolled in the first place was because the insurance companies deemed them too risky; i.e., they were more likely to cost the company money, on balance, than to make them money.
saxitoxin wrote: No one suggested there would be no organizational body in a Proudhon mutualist society.
I'm suggesting there would be no organizational body. That is the sole thesis of my argument.
saxitoxin wrote:The millions that big healthcare insurance corporations, like UHC, shoved into Obama's greedy, fat mouth via campaign donations will be paid back a hundred times over by all the new customers they'll be enrolling.
This is a grossly unwarranted claim. Presumably the reason that those customers were not enrolled in the first place was because the insurance companies deemed them too risky; i.e., they were more likely to cost the company money, on balance, than to make them money.
This is a logical fallacy, specifically what - and excuse if I butcher the Latin - is called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
I regret I can only address arguments that display sound reasoning and basic skills of logical comprehension.
Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote: No one suggested there would be no organizational body in a Proudhon mutualist society.
I'm suggesting there would be no organizational body. That is the sole thesis of my argument.
Sorry, thought you were jawboning with the gang. Wasn't aware you were talking with yourself. My apologies for interrupting the conversation.
Regretfully, Uncle Saxi
Last edited by saxitoxin on Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:The millions that big healthcare insurance corporations, like UHC, shoved into Obama's greedy, fat mouth via campaign donations will be paid back a hundred times over by all the new customers they'll be enrolling.
This is a grossly unwarranted claim. Presumably the reason that those customers were not enrolled in the first place was because the insurance companies deemed them too risky; i.e., they were more likely to cost the company money, on balance, than to make them money.
This is a logical fallacy, specifically what - and excuse if I butcher the Latin - is called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
I regret I can only address arguments that display sound reasoning and basic skills of logical comprehension.
Okay, I'm now thoroughly convinced that you have no understanding of basic logic. I regret that I will only have conversations when the person I am conversing with understands what he or she is talking about.
saxitoxin wrote: Sorry, thought you were jawboning with the gang. Wasn't aware you were talking with yourself. My apologies for interrupting the conversation.
Regretfully, Uncle Saxi
Another case of basic logic fail: I suggested that there would be no organizational body. Therefore your claim that no one suggested that, is patently false. If you're going senile in your old age and can't understand such conclusions of basic logic, though, I'm more than willing to humor you.
saxitoxin wrote:The millions that big healthcare insurance corporations, like UHC, shoved into Obama's greedy, fat mouth via campaign donations will be paid back a hundred times over by all the new customers they'll be enrolling.
This is a grossly unwarranted claim. Presumably the reason that those customers were not enrolled in the first place was because the insurance companies deemed them too risky; i.e., they were more likely to cost the company money, on balance, than to make them money.
This is a logical fallacy, specifically what - and excuse if I butcher the Latin - is called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
I regret I can only address arguments that display sound reasoning and basic skills of logical comprehension.
Okay, I'm now thoroughly convinced that you have no understanding of basic logic. I regret that I will only have conversations when the person I am conversing with understands what he or she is talking about.
saxitoxin wrote: Sorry, thought you were jawboning with the gang. Wasn't aware you were talking with yourself. My apologies for interrupting the conversation.
Regretfully, Uncle Saxi
Another case of basic logic fail: I suggested that there would be no organizational body. Therefore your claim that no one suggested that, is patently false. If you're going senile in your old age and can't understand such conclusions of basic logic, though, I'm more than willing to humor you.
(Gang, in science, this is what we identify as a logical fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi.)
Certainly.
I'm sure you could also suggest the Sun revolved around the Earth but not sure you'd get many rational people interested in jawboning about that with you. But, yes, you did suggest it - as utterly bizarre and contrary to 150 years of scientific consensus as it was - so credit's due where credit's due. Maybe you'll get some takers. Who knows?
Best of luck with all your endeavors in life!
XOXO, Uncle Saxi!
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
I just want to make it clear that you believe in a sociopolitical system that has never been proven effective in any way whatsoever, and whose founder could arguably be considered the reason why Marx wrote what he did, whose philosophy in turn was indirectly responsible for the establishment of a statist system completely opposite of what Proudhon originally intended - one that caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. I suggest that in comparison to that, my claim that there would be no organizational body in your fictitious society doesn't seem very ludicrous.
Also, I think that you really need to figure out that having a logical argument does not entail spouting the names of logical fallacies and moving on.
P.S. I think you need to look up the word "consensus" in a dictionary.
Metsfanmax wrote:I just want to make it clear that you believe in a sociopolitical system that has never been proven effective in any way whatsoever, and whose founder could arguably be considered the reason why Marx wrote what he did, whose philosophy in turn was indirectly responsible for the establishment of a statist system completely opposite of what Proudhon originally intended - one that caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. I suggest that in comparison to that, my claim that there would be no organizational body in your fictitious society doesn't seem very ludicrous.
Also, I think that you really need to figure out that having a logical argument does not entail spouting the names of logical fallacies and moving on.
P.S. I think you need to look up the word "consensus" in a dictionary.
M - about to dash to make the early-bird din-din at Sizzler so don't have time to read your speech but if you'd like to bullet-point it I'll try to give it the once over.
Thanks, guy!
P.S. - caught your "also" ... I think you really need to figure out I'm "sending you up" for the private benefit of 2 other science-minded commenters I've been tee-hee'ing with over your grimly serious, and patently amusing, use of 101-level Logic in a different thread.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
I pronounce Metsfanmax the winner of this argument (despite his taste in Major League Baseball teams) over Saxitoxin. Saxitoxin has apparently thrown in the towel.
thegreekdog wrote:I pronounce Metsfanmax the winner of this argument (despite his taste in Major League Baseball teams) over Saxitoxin. Saxitoxin has apparently thrown in the towel.
IT'S STEAK AND MALIBU CHICKEN NIGHT, FOR CHRISSAKES! DON'T I GET A PASS FOR THAT?!
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Pedronicus wrote:Government is...owned by the banks and no longer serves the good of the common man. Everything is corrupt, everything is bent, nothing is as it appears.
Frankly I'm surprised that Obama is getting this healthcare past all those lawyers and corporations who make far more from healthcare remaining in the hands of the private sector.
Jims never left America, so he knows no different. Strange that he has such strong views on healthcare after only experiencing only one side of the coin.
For the record I have "left America".
I have never lived anywhere else, though I was comfortable in Ireland and Australia... and think I may move Down-Under when the US gives up and opens our borders to Mexico.
I have also traveled to France, Bermuda, and Canada. Admittedly, all Western or culturally Western countries.
thegreekdog wrote:I pronounce Metsfanmax the winner of this argument (despite his taste in Major League Baseball teams) over Saxitoxin. Saxitoxin has apparently thrown in the towel.
IT'S STEAK AND MALIBU CHICKEN NIGHT, FOR CHRISSAKES! DON'T I GET A PASS FOR THAT?!
Pedronicus wrote:Government is...owned by the banks and no longer serves the good of the common man. Everything is corrupt, everything is bent, nothing is as it appears.
Frankly I'm surprised that Obama is getting this healthcare past all those lawyers and corporations who make far more from healthcare remaining in the hands of the private sector.
Jims never left America, so he knows no different. Strange that he has such strong views on healthcare after only experiencing only one side of the coin.
... And another point... If I (and most Americans) are happy with our healthcare system as-is... Why should we be required to experience some other side to know we don't want to change???
In order to experience socialized healthcare we have to ruin our system... Once that's done we can never go back. It will be impossible to go back.
Pedronicus wrote:Government is...owned by the banks and no longer serves the good of the common man. Everything is corrupt, everything is bent, nothing is as it appears.
Frankly I'm surprised that Obama is getting this healthcare past all those lawyers and corporations who make far more from healthcare remaining in the hands of the private sector.
Jims never left America, so he knows no different. Strange that he has such strong views on healthcare after only experiencing only one side of the coin.
... And another point... If I (and most Americans) are happy with our healthcare system as-is... Why should we be required to experience some other side to know we don't want to change???
#1 because most people are NOT happy with our system "as is". #2 because we cannot afford to continue with the status quo.
jimboston wrote:In order to experience socialized healthcare we have to ruin our system... Once that's done we can never go back. It will be impossible to go back.
Except it has not ruined the healthcare of other nations. Also, most of our system -- the research, etc, the parts that really make our system good, already ARE socialized. Its just that most people don't realize it. (private companies get the patents, but most research is done by NIH, who is then required by law to turn over that research for free to companies who can patent it). (source: Ralph Nadar on Health care).
saxitoxin wrote:This is a logical fallacy, specifically what - and excuse if I butcher the Latin - is called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
saxitoxin wrote:This is a logical fallacy, specifically what - and excuse if I butcher the Latin - is called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
john9blue wrote:...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.
discuss
Not true, but it makes a convenient cry for those who want to do away with healthcare reform.
Seems you prefer heads of insurance companies who have profit as their obligation to dictate our care instead of elected officials. MOST people don't, but you would never get that from the right wing news. You have to go to objective surveys AND actually look at the answers to all the questions, not just the ones conservatives conveniently worded to get the answers they want.
Government provides the fences and infrastructure that allows us to live peaceably together despite our different values and wants. Included in that "infrastructure" bit is understanding and protecting our natural systems, because they are just too vast and too complex for any other entity. Plus, they just don't offer direct and immediately observable profit in many cases.
yes cause that's not what liberals news does too?
What liberal news? Right now, you have to work pretty hard to find any. You can find some on the internet, of course, though like anything on the 'net, you have to be careful that the source is legitimate. You might be able to get it on cable in some locations, though not here. NPR has 2 truly left-wing sources, 2 hours once a week in the evening, at a time that is not terribly convenient to most people. (I do try to catch it sometimes, but its not a priority).
targetman377 wrote:WTF honestly all sides do it you are blind as a fen bat you can't see it.
There is a group in the center that works very hard to be objective and just give truth. Sadly, too many people here don't even recognize the difference.
i see that you are blind there is no media that is not biased at all!!! and if you think there is. well then i am truly sorry for you
john9blue wrote:...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.
discuss
Not true, but it makes a convenient cry for those who want to do away with healthcare reform.
Seems you prefer heads of insurance companies who have profit as their obligation to dictate our care instead of elected officials. MOST people don't, but you would never get that from the right wing news. You have to go to objective surveys AND actually look at the answers to all the questions, not just the ones conservatives conveniently worded to get the answers they want.
Government provides the fences and infrastructure that allows us to live peaceably together despite our different values and wants. Included in that "infrastructure" bit is understanding and protecting our natural systems, because they are just too vast and too complex for any other entity. Plus, they just don't offer direct and immediately observable profit in many cases.
yes cause that's not what liberals news does too?
What liberal news? Right now, you have to work pretty hard to find any. You can find some on the internet, of course, though like anything on the 'net, you have to be careful that the source is legitimate. You might be able to get it on cable in some locations, though not here. NPR has 2 truly left-wing sources, 2 hours once a week in the evening, at a time that is not terribly convenient to most people. (I do try to catch it sometimes, but its not a priority).
targetman377 wrote:WTF honestly all sides do it you are blind as a fen bat you can't see it.
There is a group in the center that works very hard to be objective and just give truth. Sadly, too many people here don't even recognize the difference.
i see that you are blind there is no media that is not biased at all!!! and if you think there is. well then i am truly sorry for you
Where did she say there was media that was not biased at all? She said they work very hard to be. Perhaps it is yourself that you should feel sorry for.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Uncle Saxi! 
