[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’ll play the roll of your teacher today.[/quote]
Hopefully, your teachers did more than cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.
And it’s “role.”
[quote]rainjack wrote:
How can you be so sure about that? People get sick. People die. One person’s sickness could be another person’s big break.
The Circle of Life does not need the government getting in the way. [/quote]
That’s the thing about entrepreneurs , they benefit society virtually by their very existence. I believe a resourceful guy like Tiribulus will benefit society by his very (healthy) existence. You assume someone else with his skill set exists that can do his job as well as he can. That cannot be assumed, but even if that were the case society would be better by having two Tiribulus’es rather than just one.
The same argument can easily be made for labor if you’d like.
The Massachusetts experiment already has cracks in it’s hull. They should be leaking in a year or two with the ship itself sinking right about the time we get it rammed down our throats on the federal level.
The insane part will be watching it’s proponents in scuba gear assure us that it’s doing just fine. Even worse will be the socialist lemmings buying it.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position)[/quote]
THis is precisely why I told you to go read up on your fallacies. You got close, but not close enough. Pookie is the one guilty of a strawman, if anyone is.
http://www.T-Nation.com/postMessagePrep.do?messageType=reply&topicId=2434135"eId=2441904
[i]The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
- Person A has position X.
- Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y.
- Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. [/i]
[quote]A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
[/quote]
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
[i]A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
- Topic A is under discussion.
- Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
- Topic A is abandoned. [/i]
You are in favor of universal healthcare. I asked you to show me where the constitution gives government the right institute such healthcare. It is hardly irrelevant.
However, your pathetic attempt at being a teacher with less than stellar command of the subject matter is irrelevant - and a red herring.
Like I said, kiddo - this water is way too deep for your shallow attempt at being smart.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I didn’t reply to your argunment. [/quote]
We all noticed.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Hopefully, your teachers did more than cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.
[/quote]
Gotta start with definitions for those who don’t know.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
How can you be so sure about that? People get sick. People die. One person’s sickness could be another person’s big break.
The Circle of Life does not need the government getting in the way.
That’s the thing about entrepreneurs , they benefit society virtually by their very existence. I believe a resourceful guy like Tiribulus will benefit society by his very (healthy) existence. You assume someone else with his skill set exists that can do his job as well as he can. That cannot be assumed, but even if that were the case society would be better by having two Tiribulus’es rather than just one.
The same argument can easily be made for labor if you’d like.
[/quote]
That’s the difference between someone who is actually out there in the market, and one who hasn’t a clue, but loves to talk alot.
Everyone is replaceable. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. To think otherwise is idiocy.
The lower you are on the totem pole, the more easily you are replaced - particularly in labor.
People lose their jobs for any myriad of reasons. Being sick is but one. and yet, the world keeps turning and the economy keeps growing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position)
THis is precisely why I told you to go read up on your fallacies. You got close, but not close enough. Pookie is the one guilty of a strawman, if anyone is.
[i]The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
- Person A has position X.
- Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y.
- Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. [/i]
[/quote]
You said: [quote]Are you saying crippled people cannot be happy? Are you going to completely prevent all disease, and malady?[/quote] Notice that this is a distorted version of his argument.
This is a straw man.
I asked, “is this situation beneficial to society?”
You replied, “Well is universal healthcare it in the constitution?”
This was a blatant attempt to “abandon topic A.”
Keep studying.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
absolutely nothing worth quoting [/quote]
Fisrt you said my reply to pookie was a straw man. Now you call it a red herring.
If you can’t even keep your fallacies straight, you might want to stop posting about them.
Here’s a little hint: wiki is not a real source.
How about this - maybe you could stop busting your little undeveloped nuts trying to make me look dumb. You have failed at every turn so far.
Seriously, when I say you are in over your head, I am not trying to sound tough. Smarter kids than you have come through here and drowned.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Everyone is replaceable. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. To think otherwise is idiocy.
The lower you are on the totem pole, the more easily you are replaced - particularly in labor.
People lose their jobs for any myriad of reasons. Being sick is but one. and yet, the world keeps turning and the economy keeps growing.
[/quote]
Funny, I just had a conversation yesterday with a nice micro example for you. I was talking with the head nurse at a major (private) hospital. She was explaining to me how she lost two important members of her team late last year, but was unable to find replacements until recently. During that time they were unable to handle the volume of work that they otherwise would have. Nine months of decreased revenues.
Were these “lost individuals” replaceable? Yes
Did the hospital lose revenue for 9 months? Yes
Take this out to the macro level and you should start to understand the argument. If a company cannot find enough employees in the US, they’ll move abroad. If an American entrepreneur doesn’t exist to see the niche in the US then a foreigner might.
If you think entrepreneurs are completely replaceable, your simply wrong.
You see, these realizations occur when you’re working in the private sector and can look at the big picture.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
absolutely nothing worth quoting
Fisrt you said my reply to pookie was a straw man. Now you call it a red herring.[/quote] That was a typo. Trying to talk and type at the same time. It is a straw man. I’ll fix it for you.
[quote]
How about this - maybe you could stop busting your little undeveloped nuts trying to make me look dumb. You have failed at every turn so far. [/quote]
You’re doing a fine job of that yourself.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I’ll settle for finding an enumerated power for the federal government to even institute such a program.
This is what I really don’t understand about modern partisans. I can understand having your preferences. I can understand the argument that universal health care would be, overall, a good institution. I disagree, but I understand. What I do NOT understand is why we as a nation have to support these experimental schemes. Let Massachusetts or California try it. Let them see what can be done on a state level, and if other states see that it is useful, let them also pass similar legislation. Let them arrange reciprocal agreements if they wish.
And let me move to a state in the Union in which I do not have to subsidize the experiment.[/quote]
Winner. Well-stated.
And still waiting on that enumerated power.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The fact that every non US citizen here is eager to see Obama elected should be an eye opener, but it won’t.[/quote]
Actually, I don’t really care much one way or another… I blast McCain mostly because this board is heavily right wing and, well, it’s more fun if every one isn’t arguing on the same side.
Yet Bush, who you supported twice and would vote for again, inherited a budgetary surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in US history. The Republicans should be the party of small government and budgetary restraint, but in fact, are just as bad as the Democrats. Maybe worst.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
<<<<<<>>>>>>>[/quote]
Could you please tell us why you think a government that has ruined or is ruining every previously private thing it has ever touched should be relied upon to provide healthcare for all it’s citizens?
Do you not see that this is not about healthcare at all. It’s about federalizing another very large segment of the economy. Did you not hear Maxine Waters slip of the tongue when they were grilling the oil companies where she said they would take them over too?
My God man, are you so trusting and naive as to believe that Hillary Clinton, or Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden or Barack Obama actually give a flying &%#@ about you and your health? It’s about POWER POWER POWER. More for them and less for you. What the hell is happening to this country? They want you unarmed and dependent on them as much as they can possibly get away with.
It’s upside down. This country was founded for the exact purpose of not having that kind of society. The freedom of individuals was what made us strong, not the comprehensiveness of our government.
BTW, Rainjack is correct. Everybody including me is replaceable. If that weren’t the case the world would have ended by now because we all die.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
This is what I really don’t understand about modern partisans. I can understand having your preferences. I can understand the argument that universal health care would be, overall, a good institution. I disagree, but I understand. What I do NOT understand is why we as a nation have to support these experimental schemes. Let Massachusetts or California try it. Let them see what can be done on a state level, and if other states see that it is useful, let them also pass similar legislation. Let them arrange reciprocal agreements if they wish.
And let me move to a state in the Union in which I do not have to subsidize the experiment.[/quote]
That proposal practically guarantees the failure of the experiment. Anyone in neighboring states who needs health care will move in, increasing the load on the system; and all those who - like you - don’t wish to pay into it will move out, cutting funding. Take out money and add in patients and you’ll bankrupt the experiment in short order.
If you do it nation wide, then the barrier to entering/leaving the country is higher.
(Well, in theory. You might want to secure your south border first.)
[quote]pookie wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
The fact that every non US citizen here is eager to see Obama elected should be an eye opener, but it won’t.
Actually, I don’t really care much one way or another… I blast McCain mostly because this board is heavily right wing and, well, it’s more fun if every one isn’t arguing on the same side.
It’s not even possible that anybody who has studied the thought of the revolutionary period could believe that anything in our founding documents could be construed as supporting a government with a budget sporting 15 zeros, even in adjusted dollars.
Yet Bush, who you supported twice and would vote for again, inherited a budgetary surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in US history. The Republicans should be the party of small government and budgetary restraint, but in fact, are just as bad as the Democrats. Maybe worst.
[/quote]
I did not support Bush, I voted for him to avoid the alternative. I do not support Mccain, I will vote for him to avoid the terrifying alternative. Bill Clinton was an incidental suit in the 90’s who happened to be president while the house and the senate largely forced their budgets on him, but I agree that the Republicans of late have no trouble spending money which ironically Mccain should be better about.
I am a constructionist conservative. I want to live in the United States as founded minus the glaring flaws of institutionalized racism because I truly believe that all men are indeed created equal as far as dignity and individual rights.
The Republicans have historically been closer to that than the Democrats, but are quickly veering left as well. I am no Republican sycophant by any means.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
I’ll settle for finding an enumerated power for the federal government to even institute such a program.
This is what I really don’t understand about modern partisans. I can understand having your preferences. I can understand the argument that universal health care would be, overall, a good institution. I disagree, but I understand. What I do NOT understand is why we as a nation have to support these experimental schemes. Let Massachusetts or California try it. Let them see what can be done on a state level, and if other states see that it is useful, let them also pass similar legislation. Let them arrange reciprocal agreements if they wish.
And let me move to a state in the Union in which I do not have to subsidize the experiment.
Winner. Well-stated.
And still waiting on that enumerated power.[/quote]
He’s too busy trying to figure out which fallacy to label my posts as.
He’ll be a while. He’s not the brightest light bulb in the pack, if you couldn’t already tell.
[quote]pookie wrote:
That proposal practically guarantees the failure of the experiment. Anyone in neighboring states who needs health care will move in, increasing the load on the system; and all those who - like you - don’t wish to pay into it will move out, cutting funding. Take out money and add in patients and you’ll bankrupt the experiment in short order.
[/quote]
It is easy enough to restrict a program to people who have been state residents for a certain minimum number of years. State universities do that with college tuition.
You are probably overstating the case for people who do not want to pay for it. First, if the state is overwhelmingly liberal (as such a state would likely be), a majority would probably support the program. They’d have no reason to leave. Second, it costs money to move. So not everyone upset by the program would leave, only those people who were so opposed in principle that they would be willing to incur the immediate financial loss of moving to another state, finding a job, etc. Third - if people leave the state in such numbers that they cause the program to fail - that is good. That is democracy in action. Voting with your feet. Your suggestion is that, because earners would dislike the financial penalties involved, they should be forced to go along with it. Doing things on a state level provides safeguards such that the will of the people is not entirely subverted. Which is probably why people want it nationalized.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
You see, these realizations occur when you’re working in the private sector and can look at the big picture. [/quote]
Maybe you will learn how to do that some day. Your example is weak at best. Any business owner would tell you that.
If they were truly that hard up for help - they could have paid more money for the help. They evidently didn’t lose as much as you think they did, or market forces would have acted, and they would have adjusted what they were willing to pay in exchange for the services of the nurses.
I don’t really know what your function is in the health care industry, but I certainly hope you are not representative of the management ability.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pookie wrote:
That proposal practically guarantees the failure of the experiment. Anyone in neighboring states who needs health care will move in, increasing the load on the system; and all those who - like you - don’t wish to pay into it will move out, cutting funding. Take out money and add in patients and you’ll bankrupt the experiment in short order.
It is easy enough to restrict a program to people who have been state residents for a certain minimum number of years. State universities do that with college tuition. >>>[/quote]
Yeah, these titanic programs, once failing, tend to produce cries of under funding and implementation from it’s socialist proponents. It can’t ever be that it was a bad idea to consider this in the first place so it has to be that we just aren’t spending enough on it or forcing it on enough people. We end up with these astronomical budgets with a sea of wreckage in their path. Make no mistake, the left in this country would like if we just had our paychecks direct deposited in DC and they decided what everybody needs.
This actually became clear to me years ago watching Joe Biden on the floor of the senate where he was repeatedly referring to tax cuts as “goodies”. I turned to my wife and said [quote]“he really does think it’s his money”[/quote] He views the idea of allowing a productive economic concern to retain their own earnings as an act of charity on his part.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
You see, these realizations occur when you’re working in the private sector and can look at the big picture.
Maybe you will learn how to do that some day. Your example is weak at best. Any business owner would tell you that.
If they were truly that hard up for help - they could have paid more money for the help. They evidently didn’t lose as much as you think they did, or market forces would have acted, and they would have adjusted what they were willing to pay in exchange for the services of the nurses.
I don’t really know what your function is in the health care industry, but I certainly hope you are not representative of the management ability.
[/quote]
channels rainjack’s voice
Brain-surgeon, you hear that sound? That’d be the point flying over your head. “market forces would have acted,” No shit ex lax. That’s the whole point. The organization lost a skill set and suffered for a time because of it.
If you could get your peanut-sized nuts out of your boyfriend’s mouth for long enough to concentrate, you’d realize labor is subject to the same market forces as anything else. Labor isn’t infinite, skilled labor isn’t infinite, and entrepreneurship certainly is not. Where do you think we live? Some third-world shit hole where 1/2 the population is still pseudo-employed in agriculture? This is America baby. Where we have an educated population, skilled jobs, the best entrepreneurs and a bright future. You think the American people don’t matter in this equation? You’re a fool.
You’re elementary level arguments coupled with your adolescent, I-15-and-still-angry-at-my-parents style of argumentation makes you a joke. How old are you? You get picked on a lot as a kid or something you pussy? Keep trying to sound tough on the internet, little man. Lord knows it must be hard to live life as a log cabin republican, but learn to shut up and listen to your betters. I’ve seen people twice as smart as you come and go on this board, you’re not special.
ends rainjack’s voice
Hey rainjack, figuring out yet why no one takes you seriously?