|
Federal Appeals court upholds Healthcare Law
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 9 2011, 01:50 AM (1,910 Views)
|
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 10 2011, 12:49 AM
Post #41
|
|
Deleted User
|
I don't disagree with that principle, however there are issue where the common good is the glue that hold society together. If it was every man for himself we would have no society. The disagreement may occur on where the line is.
For an extreme example, do you agree that handicapped people should be supported by society as a whole or should they be cast loose on their own?
I think I know your answer.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Nov 10 2011, 02:27 AM
Post #42
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- Brewster
- Nov 9 2011, 10:39 PM
Chris, you accuse ME of emotionalism, then turn around and post rightwing crap from the most extreme think tank in Canada, the Koch-funded Fraser Institute. Better look up "Confirmation Bias". On second thought, maybe I'd better find it for you. In your emotional state, you'd probably miss it. - Wikipedia
-
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
Were you so wrapped up in your emotional thankfulness that you didn't even notice that your report on the inferiority of the Canadian system is based on one stat - wait times? And doesn't compare wait times to need? And did it not occur to you that every country in the world is battling rising health care costs? Fraser Institute has taken the worst possible scenario for every province and assumed nobody was going to do anything to fix it. Worse, they didn't actually print any numbers at all. If they did, you would find that no matter how fast costs are rising in Canada, our system is still costing the average Canadian citizen (and not just Canada, by the way, also every other industrialized nation in the world) barely more than than HALF what the US pays. And even that doesn't really tell the story. Since about 40% of all Americans don't have health insurance, the other 60% are picking up all of the private costs, and more again as taxpayers. Average American Family paying over $13,000 per yearAnd that's only Private insurance. A rightwing think tank in the US found these numbers on the government side: US Governement spends more on health care per person than any other country. - $4,000And that's not taking into account the imbalance in taxation in the US. Based on figures I've posted before, the middle class is paying about 70% more than the rich and poor, which would make their share probably in the neighborhood of $7,000. Going with those numbers, if we assume that the average middle class American family has four members, that would mean that if they are carrying private health insurance they are paying $28,000 in federal taxes and another $13,000 in private insurance, for a whopping $41,000! Add on about $4000 in state taxes, and we have a nice even $45,000. Is it any wonder so many "opt out"? Of course, if they have an employer who picks up the costs, they don't notice it directly. But then, how many employers are moving out due to health care costs alone? Here in Canada, we pay $5,452 per person, some of it in taxes, some in premiums, some in private extended plans. And with our relatively flat tax rate, everybody pays their share. That means our equivalent family is paying about $22,000. Pay more, get poorer results, and drive business out of the country. The US Right has this one nailed. Signing off. Chris is so emotionally attached to his dogma he'll post more stuff contaminated with Confirmation Bias, but the facts are here. Once again, brew, you respond with nothing but emotional bluster.. You wave your hands about to distract people with ad hom and straw men, whole you ignore the data that falsified your claim. In short you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't. That is confirmation bias, thanks for the definition--the problem with you accusation is you fail to show where I deny any data. A rational explanation would account for all data. You failed to do that for global warming, you fail here. Pure emotionalism. Religious dogma.
Edited by Chris, Nov 10 2011, 02:28 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Nov 10 2011, 02:32 AM
Post #43
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- telcoman
- Nov 10 2011, 12:49 AM
I don't disagree with that principle, however there are issue where the common good is the glue that hold society together. If it was every man for himself we would have no society. The disagreement may occur on where the line is.
For an extreme example, do you agree that handicapped people should be supported by society as a whole or should they be cast loose on their own?
I think I know your answer. The problem with common good claptrap is it's not decided by the common people but an elite few. Thus you have government acting on that myth and the public voicing disapproval.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Nov 10 2011, 02:48 AM
Post #44
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- telcoman
- Nov 10 2011, 12:49 AM
I don't disagree with that principle, however there are issue where the common good is the glue that hold society together. If it was every man for himself we would have no society. The disagreement may occur on where the line is.
For an extreme example, do you agree that handicapped people should be supported by society as a whole or should they be cast loose on their own?
I think I know your answer. I view handicapped people two ways. Those who with no fault of their own are handicapped, and those who self inflicted the condition. Somebody who overdosed on drugs or was drag racing and screwed themselves up I have no pity for. If they don't hold any value in their own lives, why the hell should I? Those born handicapped or with a genetic situation that results in being handicapped I take pity on.
If it's not self inflicted, here's my position. Once the family and neighbors have exhausted their resources, then I believe there is room in the budget for helping them out. But only after all private options have been exhausted. For those self inflicted, I don't believe society owes them a thing.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 10 2011, 04:37 AM
Post #45
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Pat
- Nov 10 2011, 12:30 AM
- jcapps
- Nov 9 2011, 09:22 PM
- Pat
- Nov 9 2011, 03:35 AM
The questions you raise Brew merely seek a complicated view. An assumption perhaps that we have some moral obligation to irresponsible people. The millions of decisions people make in their life should have consequences if the decisions are dumb.
A person is born into the richest nation on earth. Provided education and nurturing by the society and family. If they decide to not make arrangements ofr health insurance or burial then two consequences exist. 1. If they get ill or injure themselves, unless they can find a bleeding heart to pay for their care, unless they have saved enough money to pay fpr their care, and unless their family can care for them, then dearth is a real possibility. If subsequently, nobody claims the body, then some quick lime and an unmarked grave awaits them. We do after all, need to protect ourselves from their disease carrying corpse.
Pat.............you analogy is so rosy, let paint reality A friend died, left his wife with two daughters to finish raising. he worked hard all his life to provide a good education for his daughters. She continued by working three jobs, going through whatever savings they had to educate her kids. She has worked 80hrs a week for the last ten years with maybe a 3 day driving trip once a year. She cannot afford health insurance as there is no savings left. Her jobs will not give her full time so they can avoid giving healthcare. Whats ironic is that her career is in medical billing. So what about her Pat, what is your solution?
Come on Joe, how am I supposed to know what her solution or options have been in her life. The bottom line Joe is it is none of my business. And it should be none of our governments business either. A person's healthcare issues are between them, their family and how they decide to deal with it. Why does the government have to be involved in this? It applies to you because it goes to the heart of what you speak of. She cannot afford to buy health insurance and keep a roof over her head and food on the talbe.
What do you expect of her?
|
|
|
| |
|
Brewster
|
Nov 10 2011, 05:48 AM
Post #46
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 32,223
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #105
- Joined:
- Jul 16, 2008
|
- Chris
- Nov 10 2011, 02:27 AM
- Brewster
- Nov 9 2011, 10:39 PM
Chris, you accuse ME of emotionalism, then turn around and post rightwing crap from the most extreme think tank in Canada, the Koch-funded Fraser Institute. Better look up "Confirmation Bias". On second thought, maybe I'd better find it for you. In your emotional state, you'd probably miss it. - Wikipedia
-
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
Were you so wrapped up in your emotional thankfulness that you didn't even notice that your report on the inferiority of the Canadian system is based on one stat - wait times? And doesn't compare wait times to need? And did it not occur to you that every country in the world is battling rising health care costs? Fraser Institute has taken the worst possible scenario for every province and assumed nobody was going to do anything to fix it. Worse, they didn't actually print any numbers at all. If they did, you would find that no matter how fast costs are rising in Canada, our system is still costing the average Canadian citizen (and not just Canada, by the way, also every other industrialized nation in the world) barely more than than HALF what the US pays. And even that doesn't really tell the story. Since about 40% of all Americans don't have health insurance, the other 60% are picking up all of the private costs, and more again as taxpayers. Average American Family paying over $13,000 per yearAnd that's only Private insurance. A rightwing think tank in the US found these numbers on the government side: US Governement spends more on health care per person than any other country. - $4,000And that's not taking into account the imbalance in taxation in the US. Based on figures I've posted before, the middle class is paying about 70% more than the rich and poor, which would make their share probably in the neighborhood of $7,000. Going with those numbers, if we assume that the average middle class American family has four members, that would mean that if they are carrying private health insurance they are paying $28,000 in federal taxes and another $13,000 in private insurance, for a whopping $41,000! Add on about $4000 in state taxes, and we have a nice even $45,000. Is it any wonder so many "opt out"? Of course, if they have an employer who picks up the costs, they don't notice it directly. But then, how many employers are moving out due to health care costs alone? Here in Canada, we pay $5,452 per person, some of it in taxes, some in premiums, some in private extended plans. And with our relatively flat tax rate, everybody pays their share. That means our equivalent family is paying about $22,000. Pay more, get poorer results, and drive business out of the country. The US Right has this one nailed. Signing off. Chris is so emotionally attached to his dogma he'll post more stuff contaminated with Confirmation Bias, but the facts are here.
Once again, brew, you respond with nothing but emotional bluster.. You wave your hands about to distract people with ad hom and straw men, whole you ignore the data that falsified your claim. In short you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't. That is confirmation bias, thanks for the definition--the problem with you accusation is you fail to show where I deny any data. A rational explanation would account for all data. You failed to do that for global warming, you fail here. Pure emotionalism. Religious dogma. Ad Hom, you're really stretching it this time.
I'm actually a bit disappointed in you. In the past, I had quite a bit of respect for you, even if I disagreed. I could often count on you to come up with a few hard facts, and a degree of logic, occasionally making points that required some uncomfortable rethinking at least. Now, after all these years, the best you can do is simply accuse your opponent with this: "you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't." without actually posting any real data at all. How can I ignore what doesn't exist?
I went a step further than I am even asking you to do. I posted facts from right and centre sources, not a liberal in the lot. Hard facts, with not an emotional outburst anywhere.
You originally posted an op-ed from a notoriously biased right wing site showing a single-issue topic with not an actual number in the entire piece, then answered me with nothing but an emotional outburst of your own, and no data of any kind.
Nice try with the "Religious Dogma" meme, but anyone not swimming in Koch-a-Cola will have no doubt about who posts on faith alone.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 10 2011, 05:50 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Brewster
|
Nov 10 2011, 05:54 AM
Post #47
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 32,223
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #105
- Joined:
- Jul 16, 2008
|
- Pat
- Nov 10 2011, 12:45 AM
Yes Telco, but you are a liberal and I'm a somewhat libertarian who believes that people can make their own decisions in life. Your point might be valid, Pat, if it weren't so common that the decisions others make have a significant impact on many people's lives - and, as in this case, on their pocketbooks as well.
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Nov 10 2011, 06:49 AM
Post #48
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Pat
- Nov 10 2011, 12:30 AM
A person's healthcare issues are between them, their family and how they decide to deal with it. Why does the government have to be involved in this? Government already is involved in this. Nearly half of all health care spending is taxpayer funded. And, that's not counting the tax breaks they give business and employees who provide health care insurance. So government (taxpayers) have a big stake in controlling costs. Health care has not functioned as a free market endeavor for a long time.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Nov 10 2011, 09:17 AM
Post #49
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
The reason government is involved and the reason people are involved is because people and government overreach their boundaries. Moral relativism and generous Uncle Sam.
The gravy train left he station and now we are broke. It's back to personal responsibility and the burdens being placed where they should be, on the individual and family or friends. This Utopian idealism will die on the vine whether a law exists or not. Nobody will pay for it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Nov 10 2011, 09:27 AM
Post #50
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- Brewster
- Nov 10 2011, 05:48 AM
- Chris
- Nov 10 2011, 02:27 AM
- Brewster
- Nov 9 2011, 10:39 PM
Chris, you accuse ME of emotionalism, then turn around and post rightwing crap from the most extreme think tank in Canada, the Koch-funded Fraser Institute. Better look up "Confirmation Bias". On second thought, maybe I'd better find it for you. In your emotional state, you'd probably miss it. - Wikipedia
-
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
Were you so wrapped up in your emotional thankfulness that you didn't even notice that your report on the inferiority of the Canadian system is based on one stat - wait times? And doesn't compare wait times to need? And did it not occur to you that every country in the world is battling rising health care costs? Fraser Institute has taken the worst possible scenario for every province and assumed nobody was going to do anything to fix it. Worse, they didn't actually print any numbers at all. If they did, you would find that no matter how fast costs are rising in Canada, our system is still costing the average Canadian citizen (and not just Canada, by the way, also every other industrialized nation in the world) barely more than than HALF what the US pays. And even that doesn't really tell the story. Since about 40% of all Americans don't have health insurance, the other 60% are picking up all of the private costs, and more again as taxpayers. Average American Family paying over $13,000 per yearAnd that's only Private insurance. A rightwing think tank in the US found these numbers on the government side: US Governement spends more on health care per person than any other country. - $4,000And that's not taking into account the imbalance in taxation in the US. Based on figures I've posted before, the middle class is paying about 70% more than the rich and poor, which would make their share probably in the neighborhood of $7,000. Going with those numbers, if we assume that the average middle class American family has four members, that would mean that if they are carrying private health insurance they are paying $28,000 in federal taxes and another $13,000 in private insurance, for a whopping $41,000! Add on about $4000 in state taxes, and we have a nice even $45,000. Is it any wonder so many "opt out"? Of course, if they have an employer who picks up the costs, they don't notice it directly. But then, how many employers are moving out due to health care costs alone? Here in Canada, we pay $5,452 per person, some of it in taxes, some in premiums, some in private extended plans. And with our relatively flat tax rate, everybody pays their share. That means our equivalent family is paying about $22,000. Pay more, get poorer results, and drive business out of the country. The US Right has this one nailed. Signing off. Chris is so emotionally attached to his dogma he'll post more stuff contaminated with Confirmation Bias, but the facts are here.
Once again, brew, you respond with nothing but emotional bluster.. You wave your hands about to distract people with ad hom and straw men, whole you ignore the data that falsified your claim. In short you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't. That is confirmation bias, thanks for the definition--the problem with you accusation is you fail to show where I deny any data. A rational explanation would account for all data. You failed to do that for global warming, you fail here. Pure emotionalism. Religious dogma.
Ad Hom, you're really stretching it this time. I'm actually a bit disappointed in you. In the past, I had quite a bit of respect for you, even if I disagreed. I could often count on you to come up with a few hard facts, and a degree of logic, occasionally making points that required some uncomfortable rethinking at least. Now, after all these years, the best you can do is simply accuse your opponent with this: "you present data to support your claim but ignore data that doesn't." without actually posting any real data at all. How can I ignore what doesn't exist? I went a step further than I am even asking you to do. I posted facts from right and centre sources, not a liberal in the lot. Hard facts, with not an emotional outburst anywhere. You originally posted an op-ed from a notoriously biased right wing site showing a single-issue topic with not an actual number in the entire piece, then answered me with nothing but an emotional outburst of your own, and no data of any kind. Nice try with the "Religious Dogma" meme, but anyone not swimming in Koch-a-Cola will have no doubt about who posts on faith alone. Which data was proven right and wrong? I didn't see any refutation.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|