[Sean]

Part two...

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Some still prefer the group pool of money, even if some individuals are not using the money in accordance with common sense (ie alcoholics getting liver transplants and hitting the bottle afterword). Even if you do not believe in "common sense"...at a certain point, with certain conditions and certain specific ways to contract those conditions, there are direct causations between deliberate human activity and the presence of a disease. As a registered voter, I choose to vote against this communal-money-pool school of thought because I do not want others to be held accountable for my actions and choices and I do not want to be held accountable for the actions and choices of others (when choices lead to illness), even if it means higher prices for me as an individual down the line. Obviously this accountability argument does not apply to pathogens, unpreventable diseases, unforeseeable/unpreventable/uncushionable illnesses or states of being sick. My intro into this thread had to deal with this issue of accountability; because certain people do not want to pay for lifestyles they have smugly deemed unacceptable, they will pressure for laws to limit your freedom of lifestyle or deny you health care coverage under the universal health care system.

And here we differ on the "common sense" issue. I disagree with the bulk of the examples you've given of people being "stupid", "retarded", or showing no "common sense". In your comments above, you illustrate your point by saying "alcoholics getting liver transplants and hitting the bottle afterword" aren't using "common sense". Alcoholism is a disease, and an extremely difficult one to fight. I simply don't see that as an issue of "common sense" as you do. And you've already refused to respond in any meaningful way to my challenges regarding what exercise-driven physical activities you believe should be classified as "stupid", so I'll just let my earlier replies stand as my response to this point.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Aside from all of these potential issues, health care is not outlined as a government responsibility in the Constitution and is therefore illegal at the federal level.

I would submit that this is why the constitution was framed as a document that could, and should, be amended. As we progress as a society, new needs arise, new discoveries are made, and new debates present themselves. All of these have to be dealt with as they come to the forefront, which is where the healthcare issue is right now. It's not an illegal proposal - it's a new proposal. And if it was illegal, wouldn't it be safe to say that Republicans would have already seized upon that fact in their debate against Democrats on the subject? I'm no constitutional scholar, but then neither are you I suspect. So ultimately on this point, I'll defer to actual constitutional scholars, and I have never seen any of them argue the illegality of the concept of universal health care.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

If no faith can be put in the free market solutions by dirty readers, I believe government regulation on HMO business practices and ethics is the most reasonable solution in place of free market ones.

I agree with a free market philosophy when it comes to non-essential goods and services, but health care is a necessity for all people. The free market works on a fundamental principle of consumption, which is that people tend to look for the best deal they can (typically meaning the most affordable). When they find it, they go with it, thus rewarding companies who make an effort to keep their goods and services affordable, and of a certain quality. But as was mentioned in the first article I linked to in this reply:

"When was the last time you heard someone say something like this: 'You're having chest pains, Al? Sorry to hear that. You should see Dr. Smith. He's not as fancy as those cardiologists at the Cleveland Clinic, but you can't beat his prices! In fact, I think he's having a Presidents' Day special on angioplasty right now.' There's no medical equivalent of Wal-Mart. Everyone wants Neiman Marcus."

Given this fact, the free-market approach to health care suffers from a severe handicap, and cannot be relied upon to effectively change the current health care situation for the better.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Perhaps prevention, in the form of education about diet, exercise, and public sanitation could at least limit some of the strain on tomorrow's hospitals.

"Exercise". Still waiting for a good reply to the points I previously raised on that one. Especially since I hate, hate, hate going to the gym, which means that I get the bulk of my exercise through playing sports as frequently as possible, especially beach volleyball.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I understand criticisms that I simply debated against universal health care instead of supporting the free market, but I'm not sure I care at this point. I don't have a thorough solution that I can outline for you, I just believe universal health care is not it. Free market is pretty self-explanatory, though, and simplicity may be an asset. If you want to learn more, or learn anything, read a book about it.

Given that the free market strategy is fundamentally flawed as I mentioned above, it's probably good that you didn't spend more time advocating it.

Overall though, it seems to me that your main argument against universal health care can be boiled down to something along the lines of "there are difficult issues to consider in drafting effective universal health care, so we shouldn't even try". I say tackle those issues head on and see what we can come up with. The free market just doesn't lend itself to realistic management of health care costs, and not making affordable health care available means a lot of unnecessary pain, suffering and death.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

For the record, my insult toward Sarcasmo was about him being so God damned unnecessarily angry and hostile, but not angry and hostile about one particular decision in his life. I do not take the insult back, but I will say that I respect the man's right to think individually and express himself accordingly.

Also for the record, the offense I took to it was that nothing Sarcasmo said in the post in question had anything to do with any "bad decision" he had made in life. If you re-read his post, it was all about telling you that he thinks you're wrong, plain and simple. You then went ahead and apparently assumed that his frustration with your posts was rooted in some kind of self-loathing resulting from bad decisions he's made. I'll help out by quoting Sarcasmo's post in it's entirity here:

Originally Posted by Sarcasmo

I find it hilarious that you're obstinately sticking with an argument that, for some reason, hasn't found a single positive reaction. It's not that we're all incapable of reading. It's the fact that your intellectual narcissism knows no bounds. When you've got several people with real world experience, including a mother with twins, a lawyer, and Rog (I didn't want to say "Old Guy") telling you that you're flat out wrong, an analytical mind, and one well adjusted to the concept of debate, will go back and try to find the flaws in his argument, instead of telling US to go back and read them. YOU, my friend, are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, and no about of babble about our inability to understand your argument is going to change that. We can keep digging in the piles of shit you've left for the last 11 pages, but at the end of the day all we're going to find is shit. We've given you example after example of how your little theory of "How Things Should Work" is totally unworkable from a practical, genetic, and historical standpoint. I said before, I've got nothing else to argue, because that would just be an exercise in banging my head against the wall. Face facts, wake up and smell the coffee, take your head out of your ass.

...and now your misrepresentation of what he said...

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Nothing in your misrepresentation had anything to do with what Sarcasmo said....except that it actually did support his assertion that "your intellectual narcissism knows no bounds". Rather than acknowledge that you hadn't been presenting your stance effectively, you assumed his response was all about some kind of self-loathing and personal frustration over bad decisions he must have made in his life.

I have no problem with disagreements, debates and even blunt arguments, but all three can be had without that kind of very personal attack. In this case, Sarcasmo was blunt - you were flat out rude.

I don't want to just end my reply that way, so let me just say that it's obvious you spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff, and I'm all for maintaining open dialogue, so as far as I'm concerned, as long as the personal attacks don't enter into it, I enjoy the passion your posts have brought to the world forum.