Kennedy Health Care Reform Bill.

[Cops]

zzz

[Epinephrine]

A few questions

I think you took the entire point of my post wrong, but I will try to clarify.

1. What is "society"? Who? Where is it? How do I contact it to ask it what it values?

Since we live in a democracy, 'society' is what the voters decide in the end, or at least that's the idea.

2. How does "capitalism" (i.e. economics, the field which studies interpersonal exchange, and effects of government intervention on exchange) not a relevant argument?

I never said it wasn't a relevant argument. But it's different from the 2 points that I bring up I think.

Capitalism at it's most basic sense is the idea that the end result of all choices of people (good or bad) will produce the most optimal distribution of resources.

I guess my point was trying to relate it something like the abortion debate. For instance, in that debate you can use every single argument you want on the pro-abortion side, but the people on the pro-life side will always have a counter which is 'but killing fetuses is murder!'. Therefore, all the side arguments which don't directly address core beliefs are I believe tangental.

3. Moreso, how is "capitalism" value-free? The very concept - humans exchanging goods, material and nonmaterial - implies core values: liberty, property, et cetera. It's not like those are important values or anything, not like they helped spread the flame of revolution throughout most of western civilization, creating many of our most highest valued ideals, or anything.

See my previous point. I have not talked about the issue of 'values' (aka morals). Only talking about what is valued, that's the subtle difference. I hope it makes sense.

As for the dual-side issue you break it down into, I see some clever wordplay:

"Doing whatever you want" and "not being responsible for anyone" are not mutually exclusive. Epi, you chose to be a man who is fairly altruistic, as far as I can tell. But... that was just you doing whatever you wanted to do. People do all sorts of things. They're... people!

This is more or less on point as far as describing this view. I dunno, look at taxes. Taxes are a "requirement to help out others", and noone seems to feel happy about it. I mean, what kind of hollow victory is forcing ("requirement" is such a nice word for what it really is) people to be 'altruistic'? Is it really, truly, what you would see as morally or ethically satisfying? It's not being selfless, or caring - it's following orders.

The very idea of "morality" implies there is a good choice, and a bad choice. The act of being moral is the act of making that right choice. What moral high ground is there when the choice is coerced - when the choice is made for you? What is moral about taking away rights and property in the name of being moral? What is moral about that system being enforced even on those who oppose it?

Maybe Mr. Society, whoever he is, can tell me. Alot of people seem to know him, know what he wants, and know what he values - but I've never seen the dude. Am I missing something?

The point is, your own arguments are all entirely tangential to what I believe is the core of it. Sure the ideas that capitalism will eventually produce the best result vs government action is important, but that's not really what the debate is all about. Similarly most of my arguments for my side are pretty tangential as well. I can explain away a lot of caveats that people like kthx/izor/VA can put in, but in the end they don't want to listen to these arguments because they have already made up their minds.

The two groups:

1) Some people intrinsically believe that they have a right to do whatever they want, and no one has the right to stop them. Further to that, no one has the right to impose any sort of restriction on their actions. These people believe that individuals possess the greatest ability to decide what is good for themselves at all times and no one else can make that decision for them.

2) The other group of people, firmly believe that having restrictions on your life is part of living with other people. These people believe firmly that it's not such a big deal to have restrictions, whatever they may be (taxes, waiting in a line for health care, or not being allowed to own guns), and that they understand that individuals (including themselves) make a lot of bad decisions, making certain restrictions advisable and even commendable.

(Taking your example of taxes, all people complain about it, but those in group 1 will truly believe it's robbery, while those in group 2 will see it as a necessary evil)


Whether one position is more 'right' than the other or more 'moral' than the other, I'll leave it up to philosophers. I know which side I stand on, and while I don't agree with the other side, I can say that they have good points too.

Either way, because these are purely emotional reactions logical arguments for either side tend to fall to the wayside and while are important in persuading the people who are ambivalent and don't belong to either of my 2 groups, it generally does nothing to convince the people who are firmly in either group unless you wait an extremely long time. Emotions take a long time to change either way.

[kthx]

Actually.. your side has emotion swaying what you feel about the issue, my side is pretty much all logic when it comes to health care. It is basically been going downhill ever since we allowed cunts to vote, too many illogical decisions made because of some heartbreaking story or some such shit. Women shouldn't be able to vote along with people on welfare, medicare, medicaid on this one.

[Cops]

Actually.. your side has emotion swaying what you feel about the issue, my side is pretty much all logic when it comes to health care. It is basically been going downhill ever since we allowed cunts to vote, too many illogical decisions made because of some heartbreaking story or some such shit. Women shouldn't be able to vote along with people on welfare, medicare, medicaid on this one.

Would you tell your girlfriend she can't vote cause she's a cunt who is on welfare? You don''t like em, but you sure will fuck em.

I won't touch the logic part of your post, cause well that's just not true. Both sides are fueled by emotion.

[Galleleo]

wow, Izor has some fucked up belief of Ethical and what ethics means.

[Exalt]

I don't think any of you know what the medical reform will do anyway... you all have hearsay but have never actually read it, have you?


To put it simply....

Lets say you already have health insurance. You have a choice between A, B, and C, with each one representing a different company.

All 3 are over priced.

With the health reform, you now have a choice D along with the first 3. The D choice will probably be at lower rates than the first 3 in the beginning. This choice is optional with no premiums needed.

Now... when enough people choose D instead of A, B, or C, it creates demand for lower rates and lower co-pays to match D. Companies A, B, and C will then lower their premiums to match D.

Now A, B, and C cannot monopolize the market and artificially raise prices, and thus the American health care system is affordable (at least in theory).


That is what the proposal is trying to accomplish. Whether it will or not is debatable, but it is at least worth the shot.

[kthx]

Yes Cops, women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they make decisions based on emotions a lot of the times, oh those poor innocent poor people don't have a car, lets give them a car with government money, or oh man Obama has nice abs I am voting for him, where as men for the most part think more logically and less emotionally. It is scientifically proven with what estrogen and testosterone does to a person.

[Cops]

Yes Cops, women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they make decisions based on emotions a lot of the times, oh those poor innocent poor people don't have a car, lets give them a car with government money, or oh man Obama has nice abs I am voting for him, where as men for the most part think more logically and less emotionally. It is scientifically proven with what estrogen and testosterone does to a person.

tell me what she says

[kthx]

She just listens to me when it comes to politics anyways, so it doesn't really matter in my situation.

[Epinephrine]

Yes Cops, women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they make decisions based on emotions a lot of the times, oh those poor innocent poor people don't have a car, lets give them a car with government money, or oh man Obama has nice abs I am voting for him, where as men for the most part think more logically and less emotionally. It is scientifically proven with what estrogen and testosterone does to a person.

Ignoring the fact that men have started all the wars ever in history...

[Exalt]

Ignoring the fact that men have started all the wars ever in history...

Joan of Arc comes to mind right now. I think you need to brush up on history one more time.

[Galleleo]

Yeah no totally, men never make decisions based on emotions, wars have never been started by men over a woman or anything like that.

[genocidal]

Helen of Troy (that slut). They are few and far between, but there have been a handful of women important enough to start a war.

[kthx]

So if someone fucked your wife you wouldn't go beat the shit out of him, then you are a pussy, unfortunately the guy fucking this guys wife had an army he had to kill before he could beat the fuck out of him. So again that isn't emotional, that is logical.

Testosterone creates much more logical and linear thinking while Estrogen produces more circular and emotion based thinking.

[kthx]

And epine is really ignorant considering how smart he always tries to sound, just thought I would toss that out.