Parse your basic misapprehension of the definitions/uses of the words "care" and "insurance" (as normally used following the other word in question, that being "health") and we can talk.
Printable View
Parse your basic misapprehension of the definitions/uses of the words "care" and "insurance" (as normally used following the other word in question, that being "health") and we can talk.
Well so, I think health care can be reasonably defined as 1) access to medical treatment 2)medical treatment. Health *insurance* is a contract undertaken between two parties in which the first party pays some premium to the second party and in exchange the second party agrees to pay on behalf of the first party some set of costs associated with health care.
Mothis-
Perhaps you can help me with something...I don't have links, because I'm not so basically tight-assed about such things, but trust me when I tell you I remember this distinctly:
About a year ago, I remember a David Axelrod...oh, let's call it a presentation, about health care/health insurance (apparently the terms are interchangeable), wherein he asserted there were "47 million" people in the U.S. who had no insurance coverage/healthcare.
Leap ahead with me to yesterday, when I saw the same David Axelrod (he reminds me of Snidely Whiplash, you see) inform the audience that "there are 30 million people in the U.S. without insurance coverage/healthcare".
It seems to me that, if the Obama administration can reduce the number of health-oppressed people in this country by a factor exceeding one-third merely by blathering about the problem, someone ought to suggest they continue with this strategy.
Wouldn't you say.
This seems to be an attempt to bluster around the issue by trying to tie me to a less defensible position. You seem to have simply ignored my point.
An contract/agreement between "two parties", eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by mothis
Reformulate that statement, and this time remember there are actually three parties involved, the third being the always-forgotten and growing-thinner-on-the-ground-daily taxpayer.
Your position isn't really a position at all, but you're right, it is indefensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by mothis
Wait, what? The taxpayer would in this formulation be the first party. In a nationalized system, no such contract exists because the costs associated with health care are distributed through taxation instead of charged directly (thus obviating the need for insurance).
This is an (accidental) double post. If you're a mod, please delete it.
As I say, you have not actually attacked my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Your position isn't really a position at all, but you're right, it is indefensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by mothis
Why, your "formulation" is just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by mothis
You say, "National Health Care", and the taxpayer magically recedes into the far distance?
You really need to do better than that, sir/madam.
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by mothisAs I say, you have not actually attacked my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
As precisely as you can manage, then:
What is your point?
My point is that I believe health care is a fundamental human right, and that therefore making access to it conditional on having x amount of money is unethical. You see it as a luxury, and therefore do not see a problem with denying it to people who cannot afford to pay for it.
My counterpoint would be that you have a point, and I have a point.
For your own reasons, you think your point trumps mine, and I, likewise, think mine trumps yours.
We agree that health care reform needs to be undertaken, but our respective methodologies are divergent.
Neither of us can lay unfettered claim to holding a majority of popular opinion.
We believe differently, that is all.
Your ideological brethren hold sway at the moment; I believe that will change in November.
Have you anything to add?
You believe that the right will unseat enough incumbent Democrats to regain a majority in November?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You think America longs for the theocracy she never had?
I think the dems will lose the house and the senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerYou believe that the right will unseat enough incumbent Democrats to regain a majority in November?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You think America longs for the theocracy she never had?
You may think what you like.
OK.
I think you're crazy.
All depends on how much politicians can talk within the next few months IMO. A lot of people are hating on the Democrats right now, and it can be fueled by people talking, to the point that Dems will lose both majority in the House and Senate. It's really divided on how people view healthcare. I can't say there's a majority on either side really.
Nice job of waffling.
Glad to see you figured that out. That's why it's "all depends." I just say what I see. Never came in here with a determined mindset. All those politicians are corrupted suckers anyway. It won't make that much of a difference, with all that bipartisan shit going on.
I think the democrats will lose a lot of seats in the midterms. They are just so incredible ineffective. Look at this healthcare bill. What happened to the public option? How about single payer? The amount of concessions they made on it (e.g. no federal subsidies for abortions)? The republicans use dirty tactics and the democrats refuse to call them on it.
What, to your way of thinking, makes federal money for abortion the way to go?Quote:
Originally Posted by mothis
Do you honestly feel this to be the will of the people?
Enumerate the "dirty tactics", please, and the corresponding failures of the democrats to highlight them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mothis