|
 Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...
|
|
#61
05-31-2008, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
If you were to run through your house and clip your living-room table, consequently making the vase sitting no that table fall and shatter, is your brother the one who gets hit with the belt?
Additionally, I never signed off on a war. I'm actually what you would call an isolationist. I'm losing a father to cigarettes, and I have already lost a mother to the habit, but for me to sit around and act like it is okay for the rest of you to pay for their mistakes in any way is absurd. What happened to accountability? and you guys are gonna come at me with an argument about some little boy who couldn't get health care coverage for his minor dental cavity and ended up dying. That sucks. That is awful, and should have never happened. Maybe if we rehumanized ourselves into compassionate, considerate beings instead of isolated individuals. There is a people solution to the healthcare issue, and I'm a firm believer that people's action in the field would produce more results than government. By creating universal healthcare we are saying, "Hey, a lot of us are really greedy and selfish, but that is okay, because instead of changing our priorities and day-to-day actions, we humans can create a bigger government to make sure none of us are negatively affected by humans." Which, obviously, does not make sense. Universal healthcare is a programme that reroutes HOW humans do not act humanely, forcing their actions to become humane and potentially punishing those who act perfectly humanely. Why not make our actions more humane in the first place? That is something that would address more worldly concerns than just healthcare. I guess its just too easy to blame some white corporation CEO for the problems in the world than looking inward and taking some responsibility for why the world is not perfect. Last edited by IsiliRunite; 05-31-2008 at 02:58 PM. |
|
#62
05-31-2008, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
Quote:
Quote:
also i find it ironic that you're suggesting that we be humane, but you're more interested in guarding your own personal finances than ensuring that no child, no matter how poor his or her circumstances, has to die of treatable diseases. that's freakin' humane, brother. also, i never voted for a war, either. i don't support the actions that put our troops there. i don't believe in the reasons that drove us there. but the day i would respond to a soldier by dismissing his efforts as, "i'm an isolationist" is the day i deserve a solid steel-toed boot up the ass. i've never said this to anyone online or in person, but shame on you. in conclusion, i'd like to buy sarcasmo a steak. for many reasons, but primarily because i think he was far more eloquent than he thinks on this subject. |
|
#65
05-31-2008, 10:45 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
Quote:
Quote:
And realistically, exercise in general seems like it would fall under your "risky" activity label. I know a few people who have hurt themselves during weight training in the gym - weight training being a necessary part of a healthy gym routine. So should they be left to fend for themselves too? If not, then WHY not? And if so, then what in the world should people do for exercise? Not getting ANY exercise is far worse for your health than risking injury through sports and gym workouts, so what would you have people do?  You're labeling of "risky" or "stupid" activities are ridiculously thoughtless. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm a centerist who sees value in many liberal, as well as conservative ideas, but your stance is just ridiculous.
__________________
Download all my remixes Last edited by Sean; 05-31-2008 at 11:24 PM. |
|
#66
06-01-2008, 01:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
Quote:
Plus, you never addressed anything I said about people who, through no fault of their own, are incapable of maintaining an income. Specifically, people with mental and emotional disturbances who have a hard enough time keeping from killing themselves, that they can't hold jobs. How are they supposed to get treatment for anything? You're focusing on making sure that people are accountable for their actions, but the situation isn't that simple. Never was, never will be, no matter how much you argue to the contrary. To be honest, I don't think you addressed anything I said. You just repeated the same tired material you've been using for the last 6 pages. That, and you felt it necessary to tell me you didn't vote for the war, which I could give two shits about. It's not about supporting the war. It's about the fact that there are men and women who have given something far more valuable than money to you and every other self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled American out there, and they're not getting the treatment that they need. Treatment that they deserve. Treatment that self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled Americans OWE them. I don't care if the person in question is booting black-tar heroin, if he's done a combat tour for the US military, every man, woman, and child in America owes him whatever he needs to get straight, get healthy, and enjoy his life.
__________________
You dodged a massive fucking bullet, man. The really huge Super Mario kind with the eyes on the side, where you had to run and duck into the little divot to avoid shrinking. You did that. You got into that divot, and you're still super sized, and you can break blocks with your face. Now get out there and step on some fucking turtles!! |
|
#67
06-01-2008, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
Obviously there are some special circumstances you are in that are attempted to be covered by the pre-existing Veteran's health-care-fo-life plan, that could use reworking but..
I'm sorry you think its "tired" that I have some principles I stand by and can express using a variety of methods. I would address people's specific examples if they weren't addressed by some of my beliefs a few miles upstream of their example. Keep painting the picture that I am the bad guy by putting removing a little faith in government and putting it back in people to solve, what you and I both acknowledge, are problems. I've said all I can say... Last edited by IsiliRunite; 06-01-2008 at 12:20 PM. |
|
#68
06-01-2008, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
Quote:
I've read the pages prior to my post, and you still haven't addressed the questions that I've put to you, totally separate from anything involving veterans. Again, what, other than universal healthcare on a federal level, will provide for people who are too emotionally or mentally damaged to hold a job? War is not the only thing that causes PTSD, and PTSD is not the only affliction out there. If these people cannot hold jobs and cannot make money, how do we ensure that they have the means with which to get medical treatment? To throw another variable into the mix, what if they're habitual drug users? I've worked with the developmentally disabled, and a great number of them smoke. They're developmentally disabled, which means that at some point in their early childhood (before the age of 18) something happened to them that trapped their minds in an age of anywhere from 19 months to 7 years of development. Are you saying that you would deny them health care to related to their smoking because they were, for lack of a better term, retarded? The big issue that most of us argue against you on is the fact that market forces and leveraging one's power as a consumer only work when you have MONEY. If you can't make any MONEY, you can't even get your foot in the door, and you lose from the get go. Are we supposed to tell those people, "Hang on, we're trying to evolve as a society, and we'll get to you once we've activated the altruism gene?" The second big point that we argue against you on is the fact that a hospital stay, even a small one, can be a financial cataclysm for nearly anyone not fabulously rich. A man who was 4 days out of open heart surgery for a quadruple bypass fell when he was walking to the bathroom, popped his stitches and developed an infection, resulting in his lingering in an intensive care suite for 3 months, and then the cardiac wing for another ten, and he still died. All told, his hospital expenses were north of 2 million dollars. Do you know anyone who could absorb that kind of expense? And are you willing to say, flat out, that if his 4x bypass was caused by obesity and lack of exercise, and he survived that ordeal, that he should have to foot the bill for the whole shebang? Here's the way the world works. There's a thing called a Hippocratic Oath, which states that a physician cannot deny care to a patient that needs it. Now, this doesn't apply to things like tummy-tucks and face-lifts, but it damned sure applies to things like chemotherapy and heart bypasses. What that means, in a nutshell, is that if you can't pay the hospital, they still have to treat you, and the cost still has to go somewhere. I don't even know if a hospital can take you to court to recoup their losses. So that means, even according to your plan, you'll still end up paying for people's stupid mistakes because, thank God, you didn't write the Oath. If, according to your view of How Things Should Work, people were held ultimately accountable for everything they did throughout their lives, noone would get treatment for anything, because insurance companies wouldn't insure people who smoked, drank, did any kind of drug, engaged in promiscuous, unprotected sex, or played high impact sports. That means that in order to conform to your way of thinking, anything and everything we did would be open to scrutiny from potential health care providers and insurance companies. Which, oh Constitutional Scholar, is... I don't know, A DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! I made that bit a tad conspicuous so that you'd catch it. And in order to monitor people that closely, you'd need, oh, I dunno, A FUCKING HUGE GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT! Again, emphasis is for your benefit. May the power of comprehension wash over you. I've said all I can say... 
__________________
You dodged a massive fucking bullet, man. The really huge Super Mario kind with the eyes on the side, where you had to run and duck into the little divot to avoid shrinking. You did that. You got into that divot, and you're still super sized, and you can break blocks with your face. Now get out there and step on some fucking turtles!! Last edited by Sarcasmo; 06-01-2008 at 04:16 PM. |
|
#69
06-01-2008, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
Quote:
i feel like there are huge holes in our friend's argument. he's arguing constitutionality and advocating smaller government, and then suggesting that we screen people according to the nature and cause of their health care needs and then judge them worthy of coverage. does not compute. if you don't want to be the "bad guy," IsiliRunite, participate in the conversation. you've done nothing to address any of the questions posed. i've asked a number of times whether you think the child of a rich man deserves a better chance than the child of a poor man. so how's about it? do you think it's okay for people do die of treatable conditions simply because they can't afford coverage? i want an answer to that. you make yourself the "bad guy" when you refuse to address the simple ethical dilemma that is a necessary component of many of our opinions on the subject. i'm willing to accept any answer here, such as, "no it's not right, but we all have to shuffle off this mortal coil sometime." or, "no one deserves health, it's not a basic human right." ANYTHING. hell, i can't even argue with you if you don't regard health as a basic human right. i can disagree but i can't empirically disprove your perspective. you're hiding behind constitutionality instead of addressing what is, for everyone else, a moral debate. and you're hiding behind philosophical naval-gazing about the nature of humanity and the evolution of compassion. i think we can all agree that the naval-gazing "solution" you offered would be a wonderful world indeed, but since we all live in the world TODAY at this specific point in evolution, it's not too much to ask that you come out from your hiding place and engage in a real world discussion. so far you've taken a position that seems to be entirely about not wanting anyone else to get their grubby mitts on your money;. if you don't want to be viewed as something of a selfish "bad guy" it's up to you to correct the impression you've created. no one is responsible for what you've said in this thread but you. |
|
#70
06-01-2008, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
Quote:
You've deemed exercise through many sports to be "risky", and therefore unworthy of being covered by insurance. A quick search for sports injury statistics in the U.S. tells us that in 1998 (it was the first year that popped up - http://www.nyssf.org/statistics1998.html), there were around 22,665 injuries due to tennis, 49,331 injuries due to swimming, 180,582 injuries due to baseball, and 577,621 injuries due to bike riding. Another quick search says that on average, there are 3,000,000 injuries due to auto accidents every year, 2,000,000 of which are permanent injuries. So this would indicate to me that driving a car is a more "risky" activity than any of these sports. Should car accident victims be covered considering the known risks they're taking in getting behind the wheel? And digging deeper into the sports related injury statistics, you'll see that in '98, there were 60,039 injuries due to weight lifting, 33,320 injuries to people exercising using "exercise equipment", and 123,177 injuries to people exercising using no exercise equipment. That's more injuries collectively at the gym than there were injuries due to presumably "risky" sports like the 81,787 injuries to snow skiers, or the 169,734 injuries to soccer players, so does that mean that gym-related injuries shouldn't be covered either? And the overall question here is how would you have people get exercise? Clearly, not exercising would result in worse health for most people, but by your logic, most great forms of exercise would leave people financially screwed if they happened to get hurt while doing them. Quote:
. And as was pointed out by Sarcasmo and Cacophony, the government department devoted to what are and aren't acceptably "safe" activities would have to be massive to keep up with every possible injury scenario that could arise. Or, if it was a private department in a health care company that was determining this stuff, the likeliest outcome would be prices of insurance coverage skyrocketing well higher than they already are just to cover the cost of the work involved in figuring this all out. And then there would be the deluge of new lawsuits that would constantly be brought against insurance companies because so many injuries or illnesses would be the result of situations that wouldn't fit cleanly into the pre-established list of possible scenarios outlined in the insurance guidelines. And every time the insurance company loses a suit brought against them - which would probably be quite often if they adopted your self-contradictory logic - then guess what? Insurance costs for the rest of us would shoot up yet again. And let's not forget the fact that our courts are already stretched thin these days, so the toll it would take there would be notable as well. And finally, with the mountains of new red tape your ideas would create, it's easy to imagine that huge numbers of people would be getting sicker, or even dying while they waited to find out if their insurance provider would cover their problem or not. This means that one, if they were more sick by the time they got the green light to be treated, the treatment would probably take longer and cost more, raising our insurance rates yet again, two, your ideas would be responsible for unnecessary deaths, and three, there would be even more lawsuits concerning wrongful death cases. So in addition to the question you haven't answered that I re-posed to you in the first half of this post, I have this one: when you consider these realistic, potential consequences of your ideas - significantly higher insurance premiums, sicker people, unnecessary deaths, a bogged down court system - what exactly do you think the benefits would be?
__________________
Download all my remixes Last edited by Sean; 06-01-2008 at 08:08 PM. |
| Post Reply |
|
|
Linear Mode
