115th United States Congress

[Talint]

yep, perfect showing of giving a biased take of the other side's arguements, fiye :\



So Talint, if I can find the sugar lobbyists that are going to be making more money by having its customers get free healthcare and increase the manufacturing of death [sugar] I'm just as good as you, Talint, at coming up with irrelevant points to an argument?

..of course someone's going to be making money off of anything. Gun/ammo is a for-profit numbering in the single of billions between manufacturers and stores in the US with total revenues being in the tens of billions. Don't think that's the kind of 'vested interest' you ought to be so scrupulous of and yet care so little [not at all] about the amount of money people will be making (and wasting) with govt. sponsored & mandated universal healthcare

And I don't even know what to make of your giving me the GOP passing a 700 billion dollar bill for the military. They can't be for some government power and against other government power? The only way you can make sense of the GOP not wanting government control over healthcare is if the GOP was for total anarchy..?

That's pretty simple of you

I mean, for-profit insurance is also a death industry that should be quashed wholesale?

What can I say? I'm a simple guy.

The GOP (and the democrats) increased defense by $50 billion. The idea of the GOP not wanting to spend money is absolute horseshit.

[Dimmauk]

Our latest case was by all records a decent human being. Until he killed 58+ people I mean.

Wasn't he a professional gambler? I'm wondering if he lost it all and blamed the casinos?

[Thunder]

I don't see anything wrong with what you (@arus2001) said except this one minor complaint here,

The fact the country seems to hold one to a higher standard than another is more than just some politicians being stingy with their checkbooks.

enforcing one costs relatively 0 (2nd amendment) while the other is in the trillions of dollars (universal healthcare). I think calling it politicians being stingy with their checkbooks is a pretty egregious deflection and paints anyone like me really quickly to having the opinion "I don't want everyone to be healthy and alive", which is just not fair, wouldn't you say?

The GOP (and the democrats) increased defense by $50 billion. The idea of the GOP not wanting to spend money is absolute horseshit.

they're not hypocrites because they wanted to spend money on 1 thing and not the other. Maybe they are wrong to do so but what you're saying and the way you're framing it isn't correct

[Quicklet]

The GOP only cares about deficits when they're not in power. See their trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy for reference.

[arus2001]

enforcing one costs relatively 0 (2nd amendment) while the other is in the trillions of dollars (universal healthcare). I think calling it politicians being stingy with their checkbooks is a pretty egregious deflection and paints anyone like me really quickly to having the opinion "I don't want everyone to be healthy and alive", which is just not fair, wouldn't you say?

And when the GOP continues to make repeated ass backwards attempts to repeal and replace things like they have in the past year, what do you really want people to think? They're the Republican party representatives. And despite the batshit proposals that have failed, could you point us to legitimate conservative efforts, let alone bipartisan, to even make it work? Because not even trying "because it's hard/expensive" is not good enough for me or others (who may be sick/in crippling debt now). It rings more of their unwillingness to want to figure it out, perhaps because it is more profitable to keep people sick than to cure them.

"For the people!" and all that with government, but I'm hard pressed to believe that's the current representation of America. We're an increasingly volatile powder keg that's just been growing and growing since 9/11. At this rate, I'll be surprised if there even is an America as we know it in 100 years.

[Thunder]

And when the GOP continues to make repeated ass backwards attempts to repeal and replace things like they have in the past year, what do you really want people to think? They're the Republican party representatives. And despite the batshit proposals that have failed, could you point us to legitimate conservative efforts, let alone bipartisan, to even make it work? Because not even trying "because it's hard/expensive" is not good enough for me or others (who may be sick/in crippling debt now).

What I've come to think from interacting with people getting uber heated about this (not that you are, this is all totally respective between you and I) is that to them there is no cost too great to guarantee everyone healthcare and so I guess it's fair of you to say that with respect to,

Because not even trying "because it's hard/expensive" is not good enough for me or others

can be good enough for me if the cost/consequences are big enough

so, to your question: What do I want people to think? I'd want people to at least acknowledge that they've taken into consideration the consequences (ie, the dreaded "other side") before coming to the conclusion that healthcare needs to be a right

What I keep getting hit with is appeals to emotion by invoking people's lives and wellbeing. The last time I was here doing the healthcare thing all I wanted is a concession that the cost (not just $ amount) of healthcare is a legitimate concern and I couldn't even get that. It's such a weak soft-ball point that I'm still stunned people couldn't just go "yeah I've considered the cost and it's worth it" ..but they didn't

perhaps because it is more profitable to keep people sick than to cure them.

What's this mean here, exactly?

Are you saying pharmaceuticals would choose to develop a treatment over a cure to X ?

Or are you implying republicans are making money from there not being healthcare?

Or that there is less money being used by the government w/o universal healthcare? This I agree with, and is kind of superfluous to add, which is why I want to clarify with the above - or maybe you mean something totally different

[arus2001]

Our latest case was by all records a decent human being. Until he killed 58+ people I mean.

I kinda wanna sorta put this in that old trope of, "It's always the quiet ones!"

Now, as someone that considers himself a quiet person, my thoughts are it'd be significantly easy for people to either ignore or overlook things I've been doing in the flesh if it doesn't immediately affect them. And while I've had my share of hardships over time, literally going postal on people has never crossed my mind.

Really, it's still too early to say why he did this, if we ever get a reason. For all we know, we could find he'd developed some sort of brain tumor no one knew about and this was the end result. Maybe he just really hated country music, which I can relate to being a short drive from Jamboree in the Hills every year. In the case of the former, yeah, there's not much that could've been done socially. The latter just makes him a secret dick of the highest order for acting on it in the worst way possible.

Overall, when I profess decency, it's having the ability to express empathy. We've got a lot of issues going on in the country at the moment where that's not present.

What's this mean here, exactly?

Are you saying pharmaceuticals would choose to develop a treatment over a cure to X ?

Or are you implying republicans are making money from there not being healthcare?

Or that there is less money being used by the government w/o universal healthcare? This I agree with, and is kind of superfluous to add, which is why I want to clarify with the above - or maybe you mean something totally different

All of the above? I mean, capitalism has its issues, especially unfettered. Money in politics is also a problem through lobbying and basically spending to keep opponents away from power via fact or fiction. We've got Canadians making the same meds we do on the cheap, but since they're not subject to the same regulations we are here, they're kept off the market. We've got viagra as a significant footnote in military spending. Big pharma throws millions at putting their labels on race cars. HIV meds and Epipens go bonkers. I realize I'm bounding here and there, but it just seems like doing the right thing(s) isn't being prioritized.

[Rooney]

What I keep getting hit with is appeals to emotion by invoking people's lives and wellbeing. The last time I was here doing the healthcare thing all I wanted is a concession that the cost (not just $ amount) of healthcare is a legitimate concern and I couldn't even get that. It's such a weak soft-ball point that I'm still stunned people couldn't just go "yeah I've considered the cost and it's worth it" ..but they didn't

Last figures I saw basically put what we're spending now as comparable to what universal coverage would cost. Totals were similar, but the spending would have to shift around. Government would be spending more, absolutely, but that doesn't mean the overall total is radically different.

Shift the spending around, and everyone gets coverage for a similar (not saying exact, less, more for sure) cost to what we're spending now. Private insurance is still available as supplemental. This is all based on estimates though, so policy specifics will ultimately dictate how much we spend/save.

[Mrbeansman]

So how out of hand do medical cost have to get before people acknowledge that the free market isn't working.

[Fiye]

Until the rich people that benefit from them can't afford it.

Wait...

[thetruepandagod]

So how out of hand do medical cost have to get before people acknowledge that the free market isn't working.

Healthcare isn't working under a free market currently.

[Clash Perez]

How is it that people can talk about how silly the naive Communists are for wanting a true Communist society that will work this time, no really, but they can switch right over to talking about how we need a truly free market which will work this time, no really?

[GoggleHead]

I'm beginning to suspect healthcare can't work period. There's infinite demand and finite supply. That doesn't work out properly under free market or regulated market. Shit's fucked either way because people gonna die no matter how many drugs you pump into 'em. Free market means poor people get fucked; Government issued healthcare means everyone gets fucked because the government is incompetent(ask any vet about their experiences with the VA) and the cost will just bankrupt the whole system given enough time. This is to say nothing of the non-trivial portion of the country that lives a thoroughly unhealthy lifestyle complicating everything further.

[Deftscythe]

I'm beginning to suspect healthcare can't work period. There's infinite demand and finite supply. That doesn't work out properly under free market or regulated market. Shit's fucked either way because people gonna die no matter how many drugs you pump into 'em. Free market means poor people get fucked; Government issued healthcare means everyone gets fucked because the government is incompetent(ask any vet about their experiences with the VA) and the cost will just bankrupt the whole system given enough time. This is to say nothing of the non-trivial portion of the country that lives a thoroughly unhealthy lifestyle complicating everything further.

Healthcare could work if we just got all the broads out of the industry. Amirite?

[archibaldcrane]

Who gets fucked under Medicare? Most current Medicare recipients are quite happy with it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Cail]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...wmakers-242595

Also includes lifting the ban on armor-piercing bullets

[Salodin]

I don't see anything wrong with what you (@arus2001) said except this one minor complaint here,


enforcing one costs relatively 0 (2nd amendment) while the other is in the trillions of dollars (universal healthcare). I think calling it politicians being stingy with their checkbooks is a pretty egregious deflection and paints anyone like me really quickly to having the opinion "I don't want everyone to be healthy and alive", which is just not fair, wouldn't you say?

they're not hypocrites because they wanted to spend money on 1 thing and not the other. Maybe they are wrong to do so but what you're saying and the way you're framing it isn't correct

Just so were clear, the man in Las vegas having clear and easy access to a small rifle arsenal was able to do massive amount of monetary and personal damage. The 2nd amendment has "costs", they just show up in the books in different places than healthcare.

It's not unfair to say republicans, and it seems you, don't want people to be alive and healthy; we have another example of a mass shooting that could have been curtailed or maybe even stopped altogether if we just changed our gun laws in America. When we can't even get the gop to let us come to the table to try and fix healthcare, but they consistently bring up and pass laws easing restrictions on guns in a country with a gun problem then yeah, they don't care about the lives of all Americans. The way it's being framed is absolutely correct, and you've yet to explain why it's not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Maybe it'll help, thunder, if you told us why you think the 2nd amendment is fine as it is, or why the gop attempt to fix healthcare wasn't a problem. I mean, if you think both were problematic then who or what are you defending exactly?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Thunder]

Maybe it'll help, thunder, if you told us why you think the 2nd amendment is fine as it is, or why the gop attempt to fix healthcare wasn't a problem. I mean, if you think both were problematic then who or what are you defending exactly?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Yes, I think both are problematic. I've explicitly said the last time what I'm defending as well in case it gets through now and you claim I'm saving face, backpedaling, or something along those lines

so, to your question: What do I want people to think? I'd want people to at least acknowledge that they've taken into consideration the consequences (ie, the dreaded "other side") before coming to the conclusion that healthcare needs to be a right

What I keep getting hit with is appeals to emotion by invoking people's lives and wellbeing. The last time I was here doing the healthcare thing all I wanted is a concession that the cost (not just $ amount) of healthcare is a legitimate concern and I couldn't even get that. It's such a weak soft-ball point that I'm still stunned people couldn't just go "yeah I've considered the cost and it's worth it" ..but they didn't

You are numero uno when it comes to the person who is most combative (imo, here) in refusing that govt. mandated/sponsored healthcare is more than just the lives of the people who need healthcare now.

And when you don't move past that at all it's really easy to say "the other side" doesn't want people to be healthy! Which... ok, technically they don't given the immediate reprecussions (and I've said the same thing the last time you tried discussing this with me, as well), but that's like saying I don't want all children to have education if asked should the US government subsidize the world's education and I say no

There's a big difference in me not wanting people to have healthcare and not wanting people to have government sponsored - mandatory - healthcare. It's this weird bait-n-switch where if I'm not ok with the government being the one to handle and distribute something I'm against that something.. which isn't right, you can see that can't you?

[BaneTheBrawler]

I think the point is that the free market is never ever ever ever going to provide health care for poor people unless it is legally required to do so... by the government, because the government is the only institution with the authority to do so. because poor people dont turn a profit for the healthcare industry.

so if you keep insisting the government not get involved, that does have the effect of explicitly denying poor people healthcare, even if that's not the intention.

kinda like segregation. the intention was nominally separate but equal. in practice, since black people were generally less wealthy, equal fell far, far off the board. yes i know there were other factors but this is an analogy.

i chose that analogy deliberately, though. because in a free market without gov. intervention, there are two healthcare systems: the one for the wealthy, and the one for the poor. separate, but nominally equal because hey, we're all just temporarily embarrassed millionaires, right? once i win the lottery, the system will work for me!