| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Federal Appeals court upholds Healthcare Law | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 9 2011, 01:50 AM (1,908 Views) | |
| colo_crawdad | Nov 10 2011, 09:50 PM Post #61 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I sure hope you misinterpretation of my post was intentional, Jim. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Nov 10 2011, 10:07 PM Post #62 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't pay attention to the ins and outs of the Canadian healthcare system, but I have read some articles in the Vancouver paper claiming the system is going broke there. Taxes are already sky high so where would the money come from to pay for the projected cost increases? Higher taxes? Cuts in service and availability? Diversion of funds from other programs? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 10 2011, 11:05 PM Post #63 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So you approve of attacking the messenger? I guess so since you often resort to it yourself when your arguments fail. It amazing me that some defend logical fallacies. "Yeah just like we require kids to go to school and get educated and we require parents to feed them & not to beat them." Nice emotional appeal. Let's see, convincing, no. "Sorry Chris, in this country basic health IS CONSIDERED a human right." In this country pursuit of health as a part of happiness is a right. Health itself is not. That, I think, is the difference between liberty and socialism. Rather than take care of yourself you want the state to take care of you by taking from others. How do you justify that? Oh, yeah, emotionalism. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 10 2011, 11:16 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Brewster, I accepted your counter data. You rejected my data and accept only data that supports your conclusion. That's by your own definition, confirmation bias. Looks like you hoisted your own petard. " I never argued with you on the basic point." You rejected it as I showed above. And you reject it again for the same reason: "But the Fraser Institute just picked the worst numbers it could come up with" IOW, you don't like the data. Confirmation bias. And again: " it's only one part of health care". IOW, you don't like the data. Confirmation bias. Those are not reasons to reject the data. From Brewster's earlier post: "Average American Family paying over $13,000 per year." Now Brewster says of what he posted: "Confirmation Bias in its extreme." You posted it. Now you don't like it. So you reject your own data. Agree, confirmation Bias in its extreme. "I would thank you to quote me accurately" I copied "Average American Family paying over $13,000 per year." from your post. Stop making things up. "There have been dozens of reports confirming this" Are you saying there are no reports that differ? I've already shown that your claims like this are false. " You brought up two false/misleading points" You have done nothing to show anything I've said false. All you've done is show your own confirmation bias, something you try to project onto others. Including, as shown above, yourself, calling your own posting of data confirmation bias. "You have nothing." I've already shown you lied twice, this is three times. Edited by Chris, Nov 10 2011, 11:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 10 2011, 11:19 PM Post #65 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Another one who approves of ad hom and name calling. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 10 2011, 11:20 PM Post #66 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's what I posted pages ago the Fraser Institute predicting it's not sustainable. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Nov 10 2011, 11:20 PM Post #67 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think Chris, you and I share some of the same values and beliefs. We believe in freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. I do, and I think after reading you for a few weeks, you do too. With that said, I realize that when discussing various social topics, I'm considered somewhat of a Martian from another planet to those on the left and center, and they assume everybody shares their socialist-leftest ideals. And i think these differences need to be stated out loud and assumed when discussing stuff. What you and i believe to be unsupported by logic or facts is assumed to be true to those diametric to our beliefs. There's a lot of assumptions that go one when numbers are discussed or other data. if the base truth differs between the parties, then the numbers and stats are interpreted differently or falsehoods are uncovered. For example, Telco believes that education and healthcare is a divine right and therefore should be assumed to be such in conversations. And we disagree. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 11 2011, 12:18 AM Post #68 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here is another report that supports both Brewter's data and mine on timeliness of care. It also adds quality of care. Canadian health care on the international scorecard: ![]() True, healthcare is more expensive in the US (no one has denied that), but quality of care and timeliness of care are higher. I fully expect confirmation bias will return to accept and reject data to fit a prejudiced conclusion. It's natural that a given point of view will focus on some data, but data cannot be simply reject so it fits a conclusion. The best explanation must account for all the data or likely be falsified by the data it rejects. Of course, that's from a more scientific view, and doesn't apply when emotionalism enters the argument, then anything goes, including the intellectual dishonesty of ad hom and straw men. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 11 2011, 12:22 AM Post #69 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Very well said. Our perspective is one from liberty as opposed to a more socialized, collectivist view. Still, while views look at things differently, they can't change the basic facts and logic needed to state an argument or provide an explanation. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Nov 11 2011, 12:43 AM Post #70 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yep. Consider this for a moment. Without the presumed belief that healthcare coverage is ordained from a divine being, why would a country spend 50% of it's revenue on this one program? And why would another country, ours, have so many willing to do the same? My answer is the country wouldn't. Now use education in place of healthcare. Most towns and cities are paralyzed by the amount spent on education. We all agree that being healthy and maintaining health is important and we all agree that an education is important. Both attainable absent government interference and both should be among an individuals highest priorities. By outsourcing the individual responsibility look what we have? People who are unhealthy and uneducated. For those who embrace individual responsibility, liberty and freedom, this is not the case. Maybe somebody can explain to me why they would embrace a belief system that leads to an uneducated and unhealthy populace? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





10:44 PM Jul 11
