• Republicans attempt to repeal Obama's Health Care law again.....for the 33rd time in Congress.
    116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36736340]Tell me what you think Romney is going to do, be specific please.[/QUOTE]Well, based on his economic policies from earlier in the year, keep our debt at roughly 120% of the GDP by 2020, compared to Obama's which would lower the debt to about 86% of the GDP in the same time frame, but without cutting back on social spending and other domestic programs.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;36735298]Yes, actually. Because that that viewpoint is provably wrong and would be disasterous if given any power - which, in the current political climate, is unfortunately already happening.[/QUOTE] It's provably wrong? That's funny, you guys keep saying that yet I have not seen it been proven wrong in any moral or ethical sense. If you want to prove it wrong then I guess you could start by explaining logically why one individual has a right to take the property of another individual by coercive force. I also find it hilarious how you in particular seem to childishly "dumb" every post I write yet you literally never have wrote a single argument ever against what I'm saying. And it's not happening- the US government is continuously drifting increasingly towards more socialism, and has it been for a very long time now, since FDR and even before him. After the PPACA wrecks the health insurance industry, people will blame "the greed of the private sector" for people dying, and there will be universal health care put in place after that (unless of course, the economy hasn't completely collapsed by then). [QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36733061]Why do people still argue with Noble? All he ever does is endlessly spew bullshit and ignore every valid point that completely shatters his delusional fantasy world.[/QUOTE] You said this same exact thing in another thread about me supposedly ignoring every point "that completely shatters my delusional fantasy world". I don't. Make some valid points and I'll be willing to have a discussion about them. I always concede points when someone can demonstrate that there is something logically defective in my arguments. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36735631]because when loads of people hold the viewpoint that people shouldn't be provided for by a government, and that we should let private industry do it all, people suffer.[/QUOTE] They do? In what way does anyone suffer as a result of my views. You have to prove that there is any moral justification for taking someones wealth by force and giving it to someone else, as government does. Or that in this specific case, there is a moral justification for government mandating that one group (the healthy) must buy a commodity that essentially amounts to nothing more than a subsidy for another group (the sick). On the other hand with private industry, the transactions are voluntary, as they should be. Why is something entirely voluntary supposed to be feared, but government mandates and force are to be embraced? [QUOTE=Lambeth;36732272]Hey at least I can have input on my government. Not so with a private police force, who only answers to their paycheck.[/QUOTE] You can have input, just in a different way (but it is an important way), you either voluntarily pay for their services or you don't. And your input over the police force in the US is... pretty much non-existent. They can do virtually whatever they want because they have a monopoly on force, the only thing restraining them from doing whatever they want is themselves (the gov), yet no one ever seems to question any of the moral or ethical issues behind this. [QUOTE=Lambeth;36732214]If they get injured anyway the taxpayer has to foot the bill.[/QUOTE] I would assume you're talking about the law forcing hospitals to treat anyone who comes into the ER, which is a policy that hasn't been around forever, it didn't start until the 80's (EMTALA). The taxpayer doesn't eat the cost of unpaid care under this law, the hospital does. Many hospitals have decided to just close their emergency rooms or raise costs on the people who actually do pay since, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of emergency medical care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act#Cost_pressures_on_hospitals[/url]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36736398]Well, based on his economic policies from earlier in the year, keep our debt at roughly 120% of the GDP by 2020, compared to Obama's which would lower the debt to about 86% of the GDP in the same time frame, but without cutting back on social spending and other domestic programs.[/QUOTE] I meant regarding healthcare, sorry for the confusion. Seeing as this is a healthcare thread.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36736302]No, it is bullshit because his arguments are idiotic, based in at best uninformed, outdated logic and at worst, based in malicious stupidity and callous disregard.[/QUOTE] Outdated logic? What the hell lmao. You guys have no problem with the same system of logic when I use it to tell you why god doesn't exist. But if I have to disagree with you on politics, economics, etc I suddenly am I dumbass? My arguments aren't based in disregard. They're based in regard for natural rights! Societies and communities don't even exist, they're just concepts. Individuals exist and individuals have rights, those are what I'm concerned about.
[QUOTE=Noble;36736586]My arguments aren't based in disregard. They're based in regard for natural rights! Societies and communities don't even exist, they're just concepts. Individuals exist and individuals have rights, those are what I'm concerned about.[/QUOTE] Uhh...going by that logic, rights don't even exist, they are just concepts as well. Concepts we created to make life fairer in societies we formed. Rights are not a universal thing, we only have them because we created them. Before that people would have been free to ruin an individual with no repercussions.
Individuals exist and societies are nothing more than an assembly of individuals, that's something that has to be admitted at the least. In my view the natural right to private property can be proven by examining the state of nature and demonstrating that there are indisputable facts about nature. There is a more detailed explanation if you feel like doing some reading here under "II. The Solution: Private Property and Original Appropriation": [url]http://mises.org/etexts/Hoppe5.pdf[/url]
Noble, all of your arguments are completely dependent on two assumptions: 1. What's most profitable for those with lots of money is what's best for everyone 2. Those with lots of money will always think of the big picture and never be short sighted 1 is false, and 2 is TREMENDOUSLY false. Here are several of the tons of problems with your philosophy that you have yet to reply to: 1. Roads are privatized. Who pays for roads for the poorer people? The corporations won't, because those people won't be able to afford enough of their products for it to be profitable. 2. You say pollution won't happen because people can still sue. What if they only pollute the place where poor people live? Poor people can't afford to sue. 3. Why would a privatized police force protect anyone except the people that pay them? 4. It's been proven throughout history and throughout the world that when there is no minimum wage, wages drop dramatically for the working class. This always happens. Why would this not happen here? Here's another question: you say theft (which you think taxes are) is never justified. Well, the people with a lot of money control the flow of money, and they can make it so that they keep making more money while other people lose money. They do this by refusing to put money back into the economy, not hiring more workers, paying their workers less, paying themselves more, etc. leading to a huge gap between the rich and the poor, as is happening right now. Why is this okay?
I never made that second assumption in fact I would argue the complete opposite, that human irrationality can and does effect decision making and can be unpredictable. The first assumption I never stated explicitly but it is arguably true. Profit will urge businesses to compete to lower their prices, and bring technological improvements in doing so (better technology usually means they can do more with less and lower their prices). 1. I did reply to this. There is a lot of money to be made off of low income people, walmart is one example, so I would argue that there is incentive to pay for these roads. 2. They could represent themselves in court, receive charitable donations, etc. They only have to prove that the company used force against them. 3. They wouldn't, but why would anyone be entitled to service they haven't paid for? Since many poor people live on rented land, their landlord will pay for police protection and include this price in the rent. If someone doesn't want to pay for police protection and can afford it, that's fine. Maybe they don't want anything to do with the police and would rather protect themselves. 4. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Minimum wages indisputably cause unemployment to some degree. Yeah, one guy makes minimum wage. The man unemployed as a result of a company not wanting to pay minimum wage makes less than the minimum wage though - he makes nothing at all! [quote]Here's another question: you say theft (which you think taxes are) is never justified. Well, the people with a lot of money control the flow of money, and they can make it so that they keep making more money while other people lose money. They do this by refusing to put money back into the economy, not hiring more workers, paying their workers less, paying themselves more, etc. leading to a huge gap between the rich and the poor, as is happening right now. Why is this okay?[/quote] First off they can't keep that up forever, nor is it profitable in the long run to do so. The workers would also be able to just simply work at a competing firm that offers higher wages (this is another thing, wage competition would drive wages up). And I blame central banking for why there is so much wealth inequality right now, not private sector businesses.
[QUOTE=SweetSwifter;36726703]They seriously need a double-jeopardy ruling in the Congress, so no active legislation can be put up for repeal twice within the same year.[/QUOTE] I would be up for that. But they also need to have it so that bills have to be voted on again after a certain timespan.
If it takes 33 or more attempts to get rid of Obamacare then there's probably a reason for it to stay
[quote]1. I did reply to this. There is a lot of money to be made off of low income people, walmart is one example, so I would argue that there is incentive to pay for these roads.[/quote] Walmart makes money on low income people because they are able to serve a very large amount of them at once. With a road you'd have to pay much more for each individual poor person and so companies are much less likely to bother. [quote]The workers would also be able to just simply work at a competing firm that offers higher wages (this is another thing, wage competition would drive wages up). [/quote] You can say this as many times as you want, but it simply doesn't happen, and the evidence is around the world and throughout history. If there is no minimum wage and no shortage of workers (and there's never a shortage of workers when people have to work to live) then wages will drop, and they always do. To say otherwise is to ignore reality.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSCRoYyM-Y[/media] The video is from Religulous, Senator saying don't need to pass an IQ test to be a senator Maybe these people SHOULD be able to pass an IQ test. They're children in cheap suits today, and some of the stuff that they do, the reasons they do them, and just how some of them speak, is something you'd expect to see in Chucky Cheese
Darwinism is a horrible way to run a civilization, and no country does, except for some african tribes or something who don't have the supplies to make natural selection a thing of the past.
[quote=Noble]They do? In what way does anyone suffer as a result of my views. You have to prove that there is any moral justification for taking someones wealth by force and giving it to someone else, as government does. Or that in this specific case, there is a moral justification for government mandating that one group (the healthy) must buy a commodity that essentially amounts to nothing more than a subsidy for another group (the sick). On the other hand with private industry, the transactions are voluntary, as they should be. Why is something entirely voluntary supposed to be feared, but government mandates and force are to be embraced?[/quote] It's not by force. You want to live in the country, and have the benefits of government? You pay the tax. Let's put what you're arguing another way. You're saying that the right for people to have large amounts of money, is more important than the lives of those who cannot afford the price an entirely privatised system would demand. the moral justification is that fucking numbers on paper isn't worth shit compared to a human life.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36736866] 2. You say pollution won't happen because people can still sue. What if they only pollute the place where poor people live? Poor people can't afford to sue.[/QUOTE] Yea, poor people can afford to sue. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action[/url] [QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36737679] You can say this as many times as you want, but it simply doesn't happen, and the evidence is around the world and throughout history. If there is no minimum wage and no shortage of workers (and there's never a shortage of workers when people have to work to live) then wages will drop, and they always do. To say otherwise is to ignore reality.[/QUOTE] Hey buddy, how do you think we got minimum wage and worker's rights laws? The government and corporations didn't get up and say "This is what we should do because its right". The workers made it happen. Don't mind me, I'm just correcting some inaccuracies, not disagreeing with you.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36740431]Hey buddy, how do you think we got minimum wage and worker's rights laws? The government and corporations didn't get up and say "This is what we should do because its right". The workers made it happen. Don't mind me, I'm just correcting some inaccuracies, not disagreeing with you.[/QUOTE] Uhhh....pretty sure that requires government intervention man. Companies are not obliged to give a fuck about what the employees think unless there is something that makes them, like ohh, a government regulation perhaps? Employees saying "We want you to pay us enough to live decently!" isn't going to make a CEO change it. A government saying "Pay these people fairly or we're going to destroy you, no lube" might though.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36740711]Uhhh....pretty sure that requires government intervention man. Companies are not obliged to give a fuck about what the employees think unless there is something that makes them, like ohh, a government regulation perhaps? Employees saying "We want you to pay us enough to live decently!" isn't going to make a CEO change it. A government saying "Pay these people fairly or we're going to destroy no, no lube" might though.[/QUOTE] I would study up a little bit more on the industrial revolution and how worker's rights emerged. It came from public and worker outcry, not government morality. Companies were forced to change because the people who worked for the companies refused to be treated like animals. To say it was just government that did it doesn't pay enough respect to the people who struggled to actually change the laws. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] Government is meant to be accountable to the people and push for the issues the people want. The government is not meant to be a source of morality or act independently from its constituents, even when acting independently from the constituents may benefit the good of the people. When government stops acting purely on what the people want, it becomes authoritarian.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36740773]I would study up a little bit more on the industrial revolution and how worker's rights emerged. It came from public and worker outcry, not government morality. Companies were forced to change because the people who worked for the companies refused to be treated like animals. To say it was just government that did it doesn't pay enough respect to the people who struggled to actually change the laws. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] Government is meant to be accountable to the people and push for the issues the people want. The government is not meant to be a source of morality or act independently from its constituents, even when acting independently from the constituents may benefit the good of the people. When government stops acting purely on what the people want, it becomes authoritarian.[/QUOTE] I wasn't saying that it would have had nothing to do with the workers requesting better pay, that would just be stupid to think. But there has to be some form of government intervention surely to ensure that companies hold up to their side of the bargain and pay fairly. In that case at least, the government would have been acting upon the wishes of the people. So I don't really know why you added the second part.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36740883]I wasn't saying that it would have had nothing to do with the workers requesting better pay, that would just be stupid to think. But there has to be some form of government intervention surely to ensure that companies hold up to their side of the bargain and pay fairly. In that case at least, the government would have been acting upon the wishes of the people. So I don't really know why you added the second part.[/QUOTE] Yea, but the prevailing theme with many liberals is that "government must provide" or "government must regulate". Attitudes like that give power to the government and take away accountability. Government should just be a vessel for the people to move through on a large scale. It is not the government who should provide for the health care of the people, [i]we[/i] should provide for the health care of the people, as a collective society. It may seem a bit inane to argue the differences between the two concepts, but I really believe these sorts of attitudes are the difference between liberal society and authoritarianism.
[QUOTE=Noble;36732165]Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to all of that right now but I really don't see what the big fear is over private police. You have no fear of the government having a monopoly on force at all, yet private police, who don't have a monopoly on force, are to be feared?[/QUOTE] Having paid PMC's running around as a police force is something that Third world countries do, and many people fucking die because of it. You sir, are a moron. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36733255]Why are you so afraid of someone having a different philosophy or viewpoint than you?[/QUOTE] Just because someone HAS an opinion, doesn't make them in the right to have it. No one should dismiss it without heavy thought, but it's not right just because someone thought that shit up. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=QuikKill;36736101]Bullshit to who? Liberals? No, it's not bullshit. It's called an argument. Do you expect everyone to just follow what you believe because you argue for it? People suffer and die everyday, not everyone can be saved. I don't like it like the next guy, but how Obama has it is wrong, and should be a lot less government. And Noble isn't the only one like him, there are a lot of people who have similar viewpoints. And all the childish remarks about how republicans are wasting their time and money trying to repeal this bill are stupid. If the tables were turned, the liberals would be doing the same shit. Kinda like what happened in Wisconsin with Walker. They wasted millions on a recall election, and nothing happened. Are they time wasting idiots too?[/QUOTE] yes, because the democrats(while still being supremely shitty) have ever tried to repeal the SAME FUCKING THING 33 times. I'm sorry, but what world are you living in?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741283]Having paid PMC's running around as a police force is something that Third world countries do, and many people fucking die because of it. You sir, are a moron.[/QUOTE] name 3
That's adorable.
[QUOTE=Noble;36736516]It's provably wrong? That's funny, you guys keep saying that yet I have not seen it been proven wrong in any moral or ethical sense. If you want to prove it wrong then I guess you could start by explaining logically why one individual has a right to take the property of another individual by coercive force. [B]First things first. It's not coercive force. You're ONLY reason for being here, for having the chance to be breathing this air, is because of the shoulders you're standing on. Standing on those shoulders is not free. Existing in a world that has taken care of you in more ways than you have EVER acknowledged up to this point, is not fucking free. The very infrastructure of your city and town has been built and paid for by others, you may want out of this system, but you've benefited from it your whole life. Go ahead, disagree, but you're fucking wrong on that one. [/B] I also find it hilarious how you in particular seem to childishly "dumb" every post I write yet you literally never have wrote a single argument ever against what I'm saying. [B]It's pretty hard to argue against what you say when you're not arguing, just regurgitating libertarian shtick almost fucking verbatim. [/B] And it's not happening- the US government is continuously drifting increasingly towards more socialism, and has it been for a very long time now, since FDR and even before him. After the PPACA wrecks the health insurance industry, people will blame "the greed of the private sector" for people dying, and there will be universal health care put in place after that (unless of course, the economy hasn't completely collapsed by then). [B]Socialism is not what YOU think it is. It's not evil, and it's not going to steal from you. It's not going to rape your mother, and it's not going to try and profit off of your dead body. What socialized care does do, is try it's very best to give an even, somewhat fair footing to the people who need it. Which is most people because not everyone is well off enough to afford it. Health is not something you can risk, bad shit can happen at any moment. Not everyone is going to be prepared for that moment, and not everyone wants to live in eternal debt to insurance companies because they had an accident, insured or not. [/B] You said this same exact thing in another thread about me supposedly ignoring every point "that completely shatters my delusional fantasy world". I don't. Make some valid points and I'll be willing to have a discussion about them. I always concede points when someone can demonstrate that there is something logically defective in my arguments. [B]Here's a valid point, why does Paul Krugman disagree so vehemently with your ideals when he's clearly so much more informed on the topic? Why does historical views of far right capitalist wonderlands always show them having been horrible places for the vast majority of people? Why does idealist capitalist views never happen and only become crony capitalism? [/B] They do? In what way does anyone suffer as a result of my views. You have to prove that there is any moral justification for taking someones wealth by force and giving it to someone else, as government does. Or that in this specific case, there is a moral justification for government mandating that one group (the healthy) must buy a commodity that essentially amounts to nothing more than a subsidy for another group (the sick). [B] See my first point. There's an incredibly justifiable reason to tax you. [/B] On the other hand with private industry, the transactions are voluntary, as they should be. Why is something entirely voluntary supposed to be feared, but government mandates and force are to be embraced? [B]It isn't the idea of forced or mandatory. The fact you even think that's what it's about shows you're not really aware of the issue. The transactions are voluntary, huge, and if you're not lucky, they will change the financial burden of the rest of your life in an incredibly negative way. With a forced tax, people feel like they're being cheated from money because "if they don't have an accident, they're paying for other people" but in the long run, you're ALWAYS paying for other people. In the tax system, it's just an immediate form of this. When people are injure[B][/B]d and their insurance fails to cover it, this is a severe drain on them, and in turn on the system they are a part of. When this is common place enough to actually be a severe problem, it's a severe fucking problem. When they're injured in a socialist system, they're not burdened with severe costs, and not going to be forced into severe financial strain. This is a good thing. [/B] You can have input, just in a different way (but it is an important way), you either voluntarily pay for their services or you don't. And your input over the police force in the US is... pretty much non-existent. They can do virtually whatever they want because they have a monopoly on force, the only thing restraining them from doing whatever they want is themselves (the gov), yet no one ever seems to question any of the moral or ethical issues behind this. [B]Did you REALLY just fucking say those issues aren't debated? Wow buddy, wow. You're uninformed here too. Those issues ARE debated. They're heavily debated, and they have been for years and you're simply not fucking aware of that debate. Good for you, but you're wrong. You DO have inupt. Your mayor has input, your mayor is elected by you. Your mayor and his office are required as government officials to deal with you and your complaints. The caveat here is when money becomes involved. But lets see, when that's ALL that has to be answered to, does that really make it a safer, cleaner process? No. At least I can't see it. It's also ass backwards and would lead to a very old mindset as a society that I don't think we need anymore. [/B] I would assume you're talking about the law forcing hospitals to treat anyone who comes into the ER, which is a policy that hasn't been around forever, it didn't start until the 80's (EMTALA). The taxpayer doesn't eat the cost of unpaid care under this law, the hospital does. Many hospitals have decided to just close their emergency rooms or raise costs on the people who actually do pay since, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of emergency medical care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act#Cost_pressures_on_hospitals[/url] [B]Well, that's just a shame then that hospitals are run as businesses and not healthcare centres that they fucking are. Lives or money, you can't have both.[/B] [/QUOTE] [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36741462]name 3[/QUOTE] They're not formally PMC's, but they behave as it. Just look at africa. I am searching for sources. What's good about a PMC or a private police force though, seriously, tell me
[QUOTE=Noble;36736586]My arguments aren't based in disregard. They're based in regard for natural rights! Societies and communities don't even exist, they're just concepts. Individuals exist and individuals have rights, those are what I'm concerned about.[/QUOTE] [B]woah dude[/B] yo uwent full retard here why are "natural rights" ontologically basic but societies and communities not? they're just as socially constructed as anything else
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36741618][B]woah dude[/B] yo uwent full retard here why are "natural rights" ontologically basic but societies and communities not? they're just as socially constructed as anything else[/QUOTE] Does anyone honestly believe mankind made it past the stone age by only caring about just themselves like this? I guess Noble does.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741563]They're not formally PMC's, but they behave as it. Just look at africa. I am searching for sources. [/quote] using africa as an example doesn't cut it because there's functionally no difference between militias, militaries and PMCs. they're all corrupt to the core [quote]What's good about a PMC or a private police force though, seriously, tell me[/QUOTE] same reason that anything is more efficiently managed by private companies than the government unless shown otherwise. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741643]Does anyone honestly believe mankind made it past the stone age by only caring about just themselves like this? I guess Noble does.[/QUOTE] noble is weird because I read the first 90% of his sentences and I'm like "huh yeah I agree, what's the fuss about?" but then he finishes it and I'm left with a bad taste in my brain
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36741647]using africa as an example doesn't cut it because there's functionally no difference between militias, militaries and PMCs. they're all corrupt to the core same reason that anything is more efficiently managed by private companies than the government unless shown otherwise.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Running things for optimized profits isn't maximum efficiency. It's just maximized profits. That's what a business is for.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741668]Fair enough. Running things for optimized profits isn't maximum efficiency. It's just maximized profits. That's what a business is for.[/QUOTE] competition between businesses brings maximization of profit in line with maximization of efficiency, ceteris paribus [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741643]Does anyone honestly believe mankind made it past the stone age by only caring about just themselves like this?[/QUOTE] it's beyond the scope of this thread but I do believe that true selfishness (not strawman-selfishness, where you're a dick to other people for no reason) is the reason why we're here
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36741697]competition between businesses brings maximization of profit in line with maximization of efficiency, ceteris paribus [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] it's beyond the scope of this thread but I do believe that true selfishness (not strawman-selfishness, where you're a dick to other people for no reason) is the reason why we're here[/QUOTE] It can do that, but it's just as likely to get bloated and corrupt as government so I don't get the fetishizment of it. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on that second point though. I think to a certain point it helped, but I don't believe we could have done it solely on that in anyway.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741283] Just because someone HAS an opinion, doesn't make them in the right to have it. No one should dismiss it without heavy thought, but it's not right just because someone thought that shit up. [/QUOTE] The opinion may not be right, but it doesn't warrant a fear or outright revulsion to certain ideas. If your argument is so right then you should be able to logically express it. If you can't show logic and evidence better than the other person, maybe you're wrong. Not saying you do it, specifically. I just think that ideas shouldn't need to be feared or hated. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741735]It can do that, but it's just as likely to get bloated and corrupt as government so I don't get the fetishizment of it. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on that second point though. I think to a certain point it helped, but I don't believe we could have done it solely on that in anyway.[/QUOTE] Altruism is selfish by design. You help other people because it makes you feel good. If there was no emotional or tangible benefit to helping others, then people wouldn't help others, they would be apathetic to the idea. So in a sense, selfishness is the reason we help each other.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.