Thread in which the world laughs at America

[Zevico]

I'm very much a believer in the free market, but I'm also a person with a sense of morality that is apparently superior to even the most Christian Republicans. I think it is fundamentally wrong to let citizens suffer from poor health or injuries in rich, developed countries. It's still utterly amazing to me that Republicans try to claim the moral high ground by taking away gay rights and making it difficult if not impossible for poor people to get adequate medical care. There's so much delusion out there that it really does anger me.

Please don't lay claim to the moral high ground in an economic debate. It's infantile.

[giblets]

But he has the moral high ground.

[Asher]

Please don't lay claim to the moral high ground in an economic debate. It's infantile.

The right to medical care for all humans is a moral high ground, and the fact that you think it is an economic issue speaks volumes about the morality of you and your ilk.

There are specifics around the economics of health care systems to be debated, but it's quite clear that if you compare the economics of the Canadian system and the US system, the Canadian system is ridiculously more cost efficient and the results are equal to or better than the American system. The only thing different is in Canada you have far fewer middlemen stuffing their pockets full of cash.

[Zevico]

The right to medical care for all humans is a moral high ground and the fact that you think it is an economic issue speaks volumes about the morality of you and your ilk.

That statement speaks volumes about your gift for logical consistency and your tendency to make foolish assumptions.

There are specifics around the economics of health care systems to be debated,

Do you contradict yourself? Very well, you contradict yourself (you are large, you contain multitudes).

I note that I have no view about the merits of government subsidised or provided health care. It is not an issue on which I am informed enough to make my own assessment. It is foolish of you to assume that I do have such a view when I indicated no such view.

It is even more foolish of you to assume that possessing a view about the issue is an indicator of "morality" or lack thereof. By implying that any position in this economic debate is immoral, the only thing you seek to do is shut down debate about its merits, and for that matter, stop thinking about its necessity. This is the mark of a fool.

This is a discussion. It is for you to establish your contentions and persuade others of your views. Positions are not "heartless"; reasoning is not "heartless." The issue in contention is the best means of ensuring that the health of the public is ensured to a degree that society as a whole thinks necessary or desirable. In that respect, society should choose between a number of options based upon the evidence before it, and seek to achieve what it thinks to be the best solution.

It is for you to establish your contentions rather than piddle on about a "right" to health care. You put the cart before the horse. It is for you to establish that a "right" to health care (whatever that is) is beneficial and preferable to a society "without" such a right (whatever that is)--without resort to immature rhetoric, and with resort to reasoning, analysis, and such evidence as is in your disposal. But I doubt your ability to put forward that argument in a clear-headed, dispassionate manner. Put simply, you're a waste of time. Much as you might detest Oerdin you are quite as intellectually lazy and willing to make foolish assumptions as he is, if not more so.

[Asher]

That statement speaks volumes about your gift for logical consistency and your tendency to make foolish assumptions.

What is "logically inconsistent" about thinking humans in rich, developed countries should not be denied medical care because of their income?

I note that I have no view about the merits of government subsidised or provided health care.

Then you can **** right off, can't you?

Jesus Christ, nosy little ****, aren't you?

It is not an issue on which I am informed enough to make my own assessment.

This can safely be said about your entire post history on Apolyton.

This is a discussion.

You're damn ****ing right it is, one you are not contributing to. So **** off, or contribute in a meaningful way.

It is for you to establish your contentions and persuade others of your views. Positions are not "heartless"; reasoning is not "heartless."

You're too ****ing stupid -- truly.

Morality exists outside of "reasoning" and "logic". We are not robots.

Contribute meaningfully to this thread, or shut the **** up. I tire of your needless meddling and vacuous, arrogant posts. Honestly, you're basically sub-human. You're telling me I must make a "reasonable" argument that people should not suffer so wealthy people can spend more money on horses and beach houses. **** you.

[notyoueither]

The funny thing is that if the US adopted a German or Swiss system (mandatory basic insurance, and better plans available for $, the govt will pay the premium for the poor IIRC) they would likely get better outcomes and spend a considerable amount less overall.

Yanks should forget about Canada, and Canucks should forget about the US. The two systems are at the extremes and both have major flaws. It is not very helpful for either to look at the other. There are ~20 other OECD, developed nations with different systems to look at.

[Tupac Shakur]

There are ~20 other OECD, developed nations with different systems to look at.

Almost all of which have long-run fiscal problems worse those of the US and Canada.

[Egbert]

There's demand for my posts, so I supply them. Do not argue with the market.

I'm the big government regulator ensuring your posts meet minimal quality standards.

[Zevico]

What is "logically inconsistent" about thinking humans in rich, developed countries should not be denied medical care because of their income?

It is logically inconsistent to argue that medical care is a moral issue and decrying those who discuss it, while simultaneously pointing out that "economics of various health systems can be debated." The market is itself a "health system": a "system" employed with respect to matters such as food and energy concerns, two other matters vital to the wellbeing, both medical and material, of humankind.

In addition, your argument in favour of some supposed moral duty to provide for the health of the citizenry is fatuous. What if the medical care in question bankrupts the country? Conversely, what if the country isn't "rich" (whatever that means)--is it a moral failing for a person in a "poor" (whatever that means) country to call for a scaling back of health care? Rich and poor are relative terms. Rome was rich compared to the Gauls. Did Rome have a duty to provide for the health of its citizens?

Or is it a duty only incumbent upon a "developed" country? Is that a synoym for wealth? Or is it some reference to industrialisation? Or something else? Why is industrialisation (or "development", or for that matter wealth) a justification for the exisence of a moral duty? This 'moral duty', supposedly incumbent upon government, arises whenever you think it right for it to arise.

And after all, isn't that the clearest indicator of the existence of a supposedly universal moral principle?

You are convinced that the very act of putting you to proof is itself a moral failing. In which case, I must inform you that I have recently converted to the worship of Satan. Your condemnation of my attempt to put you to proof is an instance of religious bigotry and I shall report you for hatespeech.

[notyoueither]

There are ~20 other OECD, developed nations with different systems to look at.

Almost all of which have long-run fiscal problems worse those of the US and Canada.

Healthcare is not the the reason they are against the wall.

[MikeH]

We'd be in a worse state if we also had to contend with US style healthcare issues.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

There are ~20 other OECD, developed nations with different systems to look at.

Almost all of which have long-run fiscal problems worse those of the US and Canada.

neiter of whom are Switzerland or Germany... it is incredible how the "US is the best" Americans are content to compare themselves with the poorest national healtcare systems in the developed world (UK definitely amongst the worst ones, perhaps Canada) to somehow try to convince themselves that their system is "better"...

if you think you are so good, compare yourself with the best and in no particular order, Switzerland, Japan, Norway and France

[giblets]

We'd be in a worse state if we also had to contend with US style healthcare issues.

Why? The poor can't riot if they're sick can they?

[The Mad Monk]

neiter of whom are Switzerland or Germany... it is incredible how the "US is the best" Americans are content to compare themselves with the poorest national healtcare systems in the developed world (UK definitely amongst the worst ones, perhaps Canada) to somehow try to convince themselves that their system is "better"...

if you think you are so good, compare yourself with the best and in no particular order, Switzerland, Japan, Norway and France

Yeah, but none of them speak English.

[Asher]

It is logically inconsistent to argue that medical care is a moral issue and decrying those who discuss it, while simultaneously pointing out that "economics of various health systems can be debated."

You are clearly some kind of mentally deficient moron.

It is a moral issue -- providing access to everyone. The specifics of how that is implemented are up for debate (Germany vs Canada vs the UK...). This is not, in any way, logically inconsistent. Please learn how to read, comprehend, and respond appropriately instead of wasting my time.

Your condemnation of my attempt to put you to proof is an instance of religious bigotry and I shall report you for hatespeech.

Your reading comprehension skills are just short of Ben Kenobi's. Congratulations; you're an idiot.