I'm not attempting to discredit them, I'm not good enough to pull that off. These people are professionals at deceiving the public. I'm simply pointing out a few things that should be taken into consideration when reading their political columns.
It's really quite a shame that you have absolutely nothing to back up the bolded assertion. As for the last statement, Yea, you're definitely not trying to discredit them.
So you posted all that shit with the intention of just... pointing it out then? Thought we would want to know eh? ROFL, so weak.
Why do you think that information, or an opinion if you prefer, about the true nature and mission of CATO is "shit"? Is the "libertarianism" or whatever you call it, on this board, beyond criticism? Are no differing opinions, and alternative sources, to be tolerated on this board? This is not the only place where this has happened, it's an epidemic on the internet.
No not at all. You haven't really addressed it either. Its already been said, you should try attacking the reasoning or the facts in the articles that have been posted. Your guilt by association argument is meaningless. Have you ever thought that maybe big business wants good gov. just as much as anyone else? Sure, they will obviously be motivated by profit, but things that profit them are not necessarily bad for us.
The overwhelming opposition to health care reform, by big pharma and the health insurance industry, is not a case of beneficial capitalism. To take apart articles that are funded by these corporations is beyond the amount of time that I have, and as I said previously these people are professionals at deceit. I have no motive to deceive people, but they do - for profit. As far as health care in the developed world, we are in last place. If you believe that it's going to get worse due to this legislation, then perhaps you would like to see socialized medicine in the United States - at this point, based on the results of the many nations who are doing better than we are, even that would be far better than the system we have right now.
medicinal practices aren't measured by the quantity but rather the quality of healthcare. so, no, the other nations aren't doing "better" than us.
Funding is irrelevant. Is the information in the articles true and accurate? What inferences can we take from the information in these articles? What might the opposition submit in response to the information in these articles? None of these questions has any relation to the funding of the establishment responsible for the publication of these articles. The above line of questioning is what is referred to as critical thinking, which tends to generally be the purpose of bringing such articles to a discussion forum; aside from simply sharing them with others. You don't seem to be interested in critical thinking--assuming you are even capable of critical thinking. All you've done thus far is derail the thread and troll. That's your own problem then, isn't it. Your inability to critique an article does not entitle you to derail a thread with your incessant trolling. Furthermore, I think it's quite telling of your own character (or lack there of) that you have taken such a vehement position against what these articles are submitting, yet you lack any ability to reasonably refute that which they have submitted. There are words for this: irrational, nonsensical, unreasonable are among the more polite terms, though I could easily conjure up a few, arguably, more accurate descriptives. Based on what? Proof? Source? Citation? Anything other than an apparently baseless assertion? Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion or not? Conspiratorial paranoia, baseless assertions, irrelevant tangents, and meaningless drivel do not count as 'anything of value', btw.
You can't prove that, and I can't prove that that isn't true. So, discussing this angle is basically pissing into the wind. Do you get why people are so quick to dismiss what you say now lol? Its fine if you don't have enough time. They do have motive to deceive, it would be for profit. But, you can't prove that they are deceiving people just because they have a motive. This is why your whole guilt by association argument is weak, and just downright fallacious. Think about this: If you really think you are right, then why not try to prove that health care will be a good thing, rather than just poisoning our sources (our wells, lol). So, obamacare is the answer? What was the point of this? The only way they are "doing better than we are" is getting ranked higher by WHO. WHO doesn't care what the economic ramifications of any sort of system of health care is, so its pretty pointless to whip out the WHO card. Most people object to ObamaCare for economic reasons, not because they don't think our health care could use reform.
If a few people in the United States have subjectively better health care, on average, than most of the people in the other countries studied, is it worth it for the rest of us who are not fortunate enough to have this superior care, not to mention the almost 50 million currently uninsured? I think not. The quality of the care is quantifiable, when there is objectively better care for larger numbers of people. The stock market, casino gambling, Lotteries, etc., are based on luck. Health care should not be made unavailable to someone because they are laid off, or when employers decide that they aren't going to contribute to it anymore. Every human being is entitled to health care. Hopefully the legislation will successfully address this issue and it appears the last ditch efforts, by Big Pharma and the insurance lobbies, to stop it are falling short of this goal.
So because there are those who have the resources available to them to have presumably superior health care, they should be denied the right to acquire that superior health care because not everyone has those same resources available to them? This is your argument? "Having more than me is wrong because you have more than me, so you should have as little as me." Do you make a distinction between health insurance and health care? Because they aren't the same. The leading contributor to the fact that many people do not receive the health care they desire is health care costs, not insurance premiums. Health care costs are a primary factor in what makes insurance premiums so expensive. ObamaCare does nothing to affect health care costs at all. ObamaCare is directed at insurance premiums and practices. Therefore, ObamaCare is illogical. Wrong. Learn to subjective value theory. Why should employers necessarily be obligated to provide or contribute to the health care insurance to their employees? You are not entitled to anything more than wages from your employer in exchange for the labor you provide to them. If your employer decides to include health care insurance as part of that exchange, that is their choice--not their obligation. Says who? Based on what? Health care are the resources and labors of other individuals. If you believe you are entitled to the resources and labor of other individuals, you're delusional and greedy (pejorative sense).
Question one: No, the people who choose to get premium health care plans should not be prevented from doing so. Two: I was talking about health insurance. My mistake to call it health care. Three: "Learn to subjective value theory." This sentence is impossible to respond to. Four: If the employer is not willing to provide heath care, then unless I have another option, I would not be willing to work for them. Right now nobody is being forced to provide health care. I do not know whether the employers are going to be forced to provide it under the new legislation. If not, then there must be other options for the employee. Five: Human beings are entitled to health care. This is my opinion. If people in prison, and the indigent, are entitled to it, then so are all working people as well. Six: Delusional and greedy are your terms. That may be your opinion of those who are in favor of universal health care, but fortunately not everybody is of that mentality, and there is light at the end of the tunnel for those of us who have lived through more than a little of what life is about. If heath insurance was affordable, I'd be the first one to buy it. As I said previously, in New York State a decent Blue Cross Blue Shield policy for a married couple is $36,000 a year. If it were half that much, it would still be beyond many people's means. So, for the time being, I'll take what I can get - and to those that say I'm fucked up, too bad.
It doesn't require a response. Just go learn. I didn't ask for your opinion--you already gave your opinion before. I asked for a basis or reason behind this opinion whilst considering the fact that health care is derived from the resources and labor of others; assuming you have one. Assuming that you are entitled to the resources and labor of others is delusional and greedy. By assuming such, you are essentially asserting that you have (at least) partial ownership of these people, since you believe yourself to be entitled to their labor and resources. This ultimately equates to slavery bearing in mind that the only way you will actually be able to claim such things from these people is through coercion, absent of their own choice to give such things away freely. So yes, you are delusional if you believe you're entitled to the resources and labor of others by way of coercion. Not only are you delusional and greedy, however, but you are also immoral. Welcome to ethics. Case in point. You're all about taking, aren't you? Must be convenient to have such a FUBAR moral compass.
Would you please outline a solution that is going to take us from last place in world, when it comes to health, or at least something that is better than we have now? Do you favor turning away people from hospital care and emergency rooms, because they can't afford health insurance? Are not people who work, in a sense, "slaves" to their employer, and isn't it in the slave holder's best interest to keep his workers healthy? Does Obama's health care bill force employers, or anybody else, to participate in it? From what I understand, there will be a fine to those who are uninsured - but it probably will not be enough to cover the cost to the public if they require hospitalization or incur major health-related expenses. If you lost your health insurance tomorrow, how would you feel about paying the full cost for a private plan? Doing nothing is not working. This legislation will be refined, debated, changed, implemented and hopefully will be successful. The rest of the civilized world has done it, and they do not, as far as I know, consider themselves slaves - for your own sake, and the sake of your spouse and/or family, learn some common sense while you're still young enough to do so. There's not a single place in the world where a person like yourself will feel comfortable, and don't hold your breath waiting for humanity to change to your liking.
aren't they doing all of these things already. if the supreme court has any idea of what the constitution is supposed to mean (a fact that i severely doubt) this obamanation (get it??? hahah) will be found unconstitutional....especially the part regarding the mandated insurance coverage. true health care reform is a great idea, but this is not how you do it.
You still have yet to provide any form of evidence that we are "last place in the world when it comes to health". I favor liberty and absence of aggression. If a privately owned and operated hospital honestly wants to turn patients away, that's their choice--I'd hope they have some badass PR and a wealth of loyal customers, though. No, they aren't. People choose to work; they are not forced to work. Less logical fallacy, prz. I never said it would not be in the employer's interest to offer his employees help with regard to health insurance and/or care. All I said was that employers are not morally obligated to do so--and thus they should not be legally obligated to do so. But then, our laws rarely coincide with what is ethical or moral these days. Curious, that. ObamaCare is all about force. I don't have health insurance at the moment. I'm a full-time student. I pay out of pocket. My last dental bill was over $3,000.00. Luckily my dentist offers payment plans. Freedom really is great. But this isn't about me, so don't concern yourself with my personal circumstances. Who said nothing should be done? A piece of legislation whose focal point is one of coercion fails out of the gate. Plain and simple. I have no tolerance for immorality--no moral person should. Well I guess if everyone else is doing it that makes it ok. Appeal to the majority much? You know, once upon a time, "the rest of the civilized world" participated in slavery--I guess that made it ok then, huh? Nice logic there. And you have the audacity to lecture me about common sense? "If everyone jumps off bridge, would you follow?" And we've come full circle, back to absolute irrelevance. Bravo, garrison. You sustained the vague semblance of discourse for 2 whole posts. Is that a new record for you? Someone mark the calendar.