Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Errol]

Whoever said left-wing media makes the money got it exactly the wrong way.

Furthermore, please do take in account that US medical corporations spend more money on advertising and lobbyism than on actual research. Forgive me, but that looks a little skewed, even though it evidently works.


At the end of the day, the question still is "Do you give everyone access to (semi-) proper healthcare, or will that simply cost too much money and miss the point?" If you decide that the latter one is true, you must make a better proposal. Because, for all that I know, the right to live is a basic human right, and proper health care goes a long way here.

[Neonivek]

There is a second problem

If you give everyone access to healthcare, what is to stop people from asking for other things?

Though more precident then slippery slope.

[LegoLord]

Please don't just say it's a slippery slope.  Please provide some tangible reason other than personal feelings for why it's a slippery slope.

[Neonivek]

Please don't just say it's a slippery slope.  Please provide some tangible reason other than personal feelings for why it's a slippery slope.

Well I am not speaking of my oppinion of human action. More on other people's perspective. which is even more difficult to prove

[LegoLord]

Ah.  Sorry 'bout that.

[The Architect]

Please don't just say it's a slippery slope.  Please provide some tangible reason other than personal feelings for why it's a slippery slope.

Well I am not speaking of my oppinion of human action. More on other people's perspective. which is even more difficult to prove

In Lego's defense, it's pretty nearly impossible to tell what you're talking about a lot of the time. Proper grammar is important for so many reasons.

[Neonivek]

Trust me, it isn't any easier to tell what I am saying in real life either and it is a source of constant frustration.

[Leafsnail]

There are plenty of ways to indulge your transitory, short-sighted feel-good gimme-gimme wants without putting your children and mine into debtor's prison.

Yes, of course.  Here in the UK we had this thing called the "NHS" 60 years ago, and the entire country collapsed almost immediately.  Before long democracy was abandoned and we were under complete control of the guv'mint.

How's that play for you? Good? No? Don't like it? Then don't try to trot out that tired fail-train. Thanks in advance.

Well, actually, no.  That's just pathetic.  The thing is, you haven't explained why life isn't a basic human right.

If you give everyone access to healthcare, what is to stop people from asking for other things?

This slippery slope isn't valid.  You can stop them from having other things at any time.  It's nearly as bad as the Swiss argument against minarets.

[The Architect]

I'll have to ask that you don't disembody your quotes. Things are already confusing enough without that.

[Neonivek]

Well it is to me to say thay splitting a post may that is improve the ease in which replying may.

[Cthulhu]

I think Blacken is a pretty cool guy.  eh goes against the default Bay12 viewpoint and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Jreengus]

Splitting a quote is fine but if you do it by scrolling down and clicking inset quote for each section then the quotes will still show who you are quoting.

[The Architect]

Well it is to me to say thay splitting a post may that is improve the ease in which replying may.

Translation: It seems to be my responsibility to point out that splitting a post when quoting is useful to improve the ease of replying.

Response: Yes, but we still need to know whence the quote comes.

[Cyx]

Well, I guess I can somewhat agree with you, then. If I see this as just the rough way to get medical science to progress faster, sacrificing a short-term benefit for a long-term larger one.*
The problem that I see with this is that it will give more means, without assuring that those means will be used for the good of everyone in the future, whereas the UHC approach takes a step in this direction. In other words : let's say you continue with the current system. When we've cured cancer, cured AIDS, and when every bit of effort put into saving a billionaire from an obscure sickness can save a thousand lives where people still die from cancer and AIDS, then why wouldn't the richer half of the country use this - now flawed - argument again ? Where is the line drawn, where you have to switch from long-term planning to actually helping people ? More change would have to be brought, and quicker, upon a society used to a very different thinking, and you can't be sure the right decision would be taken at this point. In light of this, maybe socialism takes little steps, but it takes them in the right direction.
However, you can't actually judge something according to this kind of very abstract thinking because you would need to get into an awful lot of technical details to have an idea about what decision would ultimately be better. I'm just saying this hoping you haven't already considered it.

*Knowing whether it is the case in reality, according to numbers and statistics and other stuff, is another problem, but I am not that interested in it, so let's say you have a point too and leave it at that.

[Zai]

I think Blacken is a pretty cool guy.  eh goes against the default Bay12 viewpoint and doesn't afraid of anything.

That's because he's not from here. He's from a land down under a faraway galaxy that dissolved, so he's come here to stay for the time being. He'll eventually climb aboard his starship and head for the skies. And he said, "Come sail away. Come sail away. Come sail away with me~"