Another one o' them smoking ban threads....

[IsiliRunite]

dictionary.com

He did express himself pretty well, but I still think what he expressed is bogus.

[cacophony]

so if i understand you correctly, your philosophy can be summarized as follows:

"i keeps what i makes, and screw all y'alls."

[IsiliRunite]

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...

[Sarcasmo]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

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...

It's not so much that we're for bigger government, but the changes you would like to see made are on a societal level, and that takes decades of engineering to do, and while that happens, people are going to die who don't need to.

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...

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Sarcasmo

And in order to monitor people that closely, you'd need, oh, I dunno, A FUCKING HUGE GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT!

i've been thinking that from the start.

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.

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i've been thinking that from the start.

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.

Just for clarification, because its obvious you have no idea what I am talking about.

1. Federal Universal Healthchare is illegal, and aside from being illegal it would entail a bigger government that I would not appreciate
2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional it would, as well, entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

That is not my entire argument, but you are confusing and blending two major points of my argument and calling me a hypocrite.

I'm not going to address specifics if you all can't demonstrate that you are capable of understanding the basics of my arguments.

And while there are probabilities that one can get hurt doing anything, let me set up a little contrasting list so you can understand me:
Driving - Potentially Dangerous
Driving without a seatbelt - Foolish behaviour to in which a person unnecessarily increases the probability of physical harm. I do not want to pay for these people
Playing Hockey - Potentially Dangerous
Playing Hockey without a helmet - A person's explicit action, obviously not to get injured, but still unnecessarily increasing the base probability of physical harm

It is not "inhumane" or a "stupid analogy" to deny universal health coverage to people who are not behaving in their self-interests when it is realistic and totally reasonable for them to do so. But, obviously, we can not discriminate with universal healthcare:

2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional by deciding who has the right to life, it would entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

There is another explanation for why I do not like Universal Healthcare, so let me know if that makes any more sense.

With respect to my foreign policy...
Isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

With respect to my views on the modern man
Isolated - separated from other persons or things; alone; solitary.

I volunteer at a hospital every week, which is one way I walk the walk about people actively solving people problems instead of creating big governments, which I do not appreciate, instead of being an active member of compassion and responsibility in their community

I also give blood. I don't mind if you have views that oppose mine, but if you are going to attempt to understand and then oppose mine, don't do it half-heartedly. Bitches

[Rog]

Twice in your last last post you mention 'punishing people's wallets', money before people? typical chelsea fan :P

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

It is not "inhumane" or a "stupid analogy" to deny universal health coverage to people who are not behaving in their self-interests when it is realistic and totally reasonable for them to do so. But, obviously, we can not discriminate with universal healthcare:

2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional by deciding who has the right to life, it would entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

Again, a glaring self contradiction. You can't call it humane to enforce a criteria for discrimination based on your own personal definition of what is acting in one's self-interest and inhumane if a government program did the same thing.

Anyway, we're still having the problem of these pedestrian notions of what is acting in one's self interest and accountability. I mean sorry to add to the dog pile, but fuck, mate. Let's start off by deciding how much medical care expenses are dealt out because of environment versus genetic dispositions. And of the subset caused by environment how much is spent because of pollution, asbestos, and lead cookery, and how much is actually caused by one's own choices. And of that subset, how much of those choices could be legally deemed to be reasonably willfully self destructive? Seriously, lets quantify this.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I'm not going to address specifics if you all can't demonstrate that you are capable of understanding the basics of my arguments.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that this comes down to our inability to comprehend your arguments.

What it does come down to is that you've delivered us a laundry list of glaring contradictions, cold rationalizations with apparently little thought put towards their realistic consequences, misrepresentations of the responses that have been directed at you, and an appaerent unwillingness to clarify your core position and how any of it makes sense on any realistic or constructive level.

Maybe it would be a good idea, since you keep referring to how your core beliefs exempt you from having to address more detail oriented flaws, if you would go ahead and outline those core beliefs in a clear, concise way.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I would address people's specific examples if they weren't addressed by some of my beliefs a few miles upstream of their example.

Not really you haven't. For example, here's one I posed in my previous post that points out a huge flaw in your thinking, and which I would still love to have you address. I'll pose it here again, in a clearer way.

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.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

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...

No one's painting a picture of you being a bad guy, but you're certainly not making yourself look good. And I'm on board with personal responsibility and smaller government when possible, but your personal theories on who should and shouldn't be privy to health insurance coverage are so thoughtless as to be stunning. There are blatant contradictions that you refuse to acknowledge or explain - e.g. people who get exercise through sports and other "risky" physical activities shouldn't be covered, and yet I assume you think that people who get no exercise at all also shouldn't be covered because not exercising would be "stupid" .

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?