Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care 
> don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work 
> hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who 
> don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being 
> the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is 
> not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply 
every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need 
it.  The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply 
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need 
> it.  The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

The reality side of things is that you don't *need* to supply every 
treatment available to every individual who might possibly need it.  You 
only need to supply sufficient treatment to remedy the problem to those 
that do need it.

...the trick is correctly diagnosing the latter.  The current medical 
industry is portrayed as (no reference as to accuracy) intentionally 
foisting as much medication on as many people as it can (misdiagnosing, 
fostering paranoia, et cetera) to maximise profits, which artificially 
inflates demand, and therefore prices.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I haven't looked at the plan in great detail, but the vibe I get from 
> what I hear about it is that it's not a replacement for the current 
> system, but an addition to it.  Those who oppose it say it's a bad idea 
> because "government run programs don't work efficiently" - like the 
> military or the post office don't work well at all.  (But wait, they 
> do. ;-))
> 
> But those same people then say that it would supplant the current system 
> because of competition.  But wait, if the current system is good and 
> competition is good, then adding an option run by a supposed inefficient 
> government agency shouldn't be a threat to the existing system, should 
> it?  The opponents need to decide, either the government can run it 
> effectively and competitively (thus undermining shareholder value in the 
> current scheme), or the government is incompetent and can't run an 
> effective program that's any better that what we currently have - in 
> which case, it's not a threat.  It can't be a threat and not a threat at 
> the same time.
> 
Hmm. Need a new deck for this one. It doesn't quite fit the 6 of 
hearts/diamonds:

"The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. 
Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include "this is just a tool," and "you're 
banning technology."

Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still 
widely-used argument—that technology "can't be regulated." Of course, 
any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but 
this exercise isn't about being cogent, it's about stopping whatever 
intervention the denialist opposes."

or the 6 of clubs and 7 of spades:

"One can always employ the "we can't handle new regulations" argument.

Alternatively, the denialist will argue that they are already highly 
regulated, and thus no new interventions are needed.[10]"

maybe the 10 of diamonds and 10 of clubs:

"Not only do you not understand the delicate denialist, you are 
proposing that the denialist be subject to bureaucrats! ("Bureaucrats" 
is always said with a sneer.) Buzz phrases here focus on denigrating 
Washington.

At this point, the denialist must propose "self regulation" to deal with 
the problem that doesn't exist.  The cool thing about self regulation is 
that it cannot be enforced, and once the non-existent problem blows 
over, the denialist can simply scrap it![19]"

Could be 9H - Muddy the Waters, vs. 9D - Poison the Well... Need to 
think about this a bit. lol

http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:34:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

Cool, I like that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:16:40 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

Only if health care is about money rather than being about health, and 
only if the approach taken is to apply all available treatments 
indiscriminately without considering the most effective treatment that 
gives the best chance for survival/cure/remission.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 14:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
>> background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
>> some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
>> and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
>> Bush's connections would land him with these people too.
> 
>     The "unholy" alliance with the Saudis goes back decades. It's silly 
> to put it on Clinton or Bush's lap.
> 
>     And yes, I really do think they should shut down Sandia National Labs.
> 
Not putting it in their laps, just pointing out that, if your suddenly 
dealing with Middle Eastern terrorists, continuing to deal, as though a 
trusted ally, with someone who has their own 'in house' training camps 
for at least one group of terrorists, is... not terribly bright, no 
matter how much oil they have.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, 
>>> and lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd 
>>> probably even vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another 
>>> election.)
>>>
>>
>> You sure about that one?
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire
> 
> Quite an appropriate link for a thread that started about conspiracy 
> theories ;)
> 
Yes, well.. This is hardly a theory. The guy that wrote the book got 
laughed at, a few years back when he did. Now.. three senators have 
gotten nailed for thinking that they could do things that others can't, 
it turns out that the C-Street boarding house actually exists, and *is* 
listed as a church by the IRS, despite the fact that its clear there is 
no church there, etc. Sometimes conspiracies are real. The problem is.. 
Well, look at who has been spreading most of the conspiracy theories 
about the left, liberal Christians, scientists, etc... Yep, the people 
who just "happen" to get caught doing this stuff recently.

And, to be clear, conspiracy theories from the other side lack any sort 
of internal consistency, because they are all based on random gibberish. 
The stuff coming from the right.. is *very* consistent. "We have the one 
true version of the faith, everyone else is a false believer, or worse, 
and they are all conspiring to undermine religions and our countries 
non-existent 'Christian' foundations." Still get a laugh at that last 
bit. Show me where, in the constitution, or anything written from the 
period, where it says, "You can only have one god, you can't make graven 
images, and you must observe the Sabbath, which ever day is happens to 
be).", or how rules against theft, murder and adultery are 
"non-existent" outside of Christianity, never mind how you can possibly 
have a capitalist economy, if you are forbidden to covet anything anyone 
else has... So.. Why keep trying to post those on every government 
building, if they are **not** what the country is founded on? lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:30:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>> 
>> I do the same or so my wife tells me.


>Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it. 
>;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of 
>'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will 
>make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to 
>the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the 
>listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it 
>saves time.

I don't recognise myself in that paragraph (maybe it does not translate well). I
tend to say "he said" and "he did" without mentioning which "he" I mean. But
with a little effort on the listener's part, mentally shifting subjects when the
sense is lost, understanding can be obtained :P
I tend to oscillate between speaking very precisely, as if I were writing a
functional spec and being too sloppy. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:48:31 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>"Yes, she's a real requirements Nazi. ... Er, that's a good thing."

Jawohl!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 03/08/2009 06:16, Chambers nous fit lire :
> The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

If there is a cost, there is a possible benefit for whoever would make
it, charging the relevant states. And if there is a benefit, it does not
cripple the economy.

Or are you stating that the benefit of some individual is a bad thing
that cripple the economy ?

The facts are rather that it's a harder thing to do than other to make
benefit, so most lazy capitalists are just not lobbying to make an
industry of it.

Post a reply to this message