Healthcare Derail From Democrats 2020

[ZiprHead]

I want affordable health care and affordable college, which is why I very much oppose the Democrat proposals that promise them.

Interesting. What's your plan?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I want affordable health care and affordable college, which is why I very much oppose the Democrat proposals that promise them.

Interesting. What's your plan?

Find the government interference that led to the prices going up, and eliminate that interference. But you already knew that. You asked so you could draw me into a debate over the particulars of my beliefs instead of noticing the primary point I made.

Jimmy conflated wanting a particular outcome with wanting a particular set of proposals that may or may not lead to that outcome. I pointed out that I want the outcome but not the proposals. You don't want that to be the topic, you want it to be conventional wisdom that those proposals and those proposals alone lead to that outcome and anyone who opposes those proposals opposes that outcome.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I want affordable health care and affordable college, which is why I very much oppose the Democrat proposals that promise them.

Interesting. What's your plan?

If the Government stops providing loans, fewer people will be able to afford college. This will make college affordable because they'll drop their prices so that people can afford to go again. This is of course contingent upon the price of college being 80% arbitrary.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I want affordable health care and affordable college, which is why I very much oppose the Democrat proposals that promise them.

Interesting. What's your plan?

If the Government stops providing loans, fewer people will be able to afford college. This will make college affordable because they'll drop their prices so that people can afford to go again. This is of course contingent upon the price of college being 80% arbitrary.

I recognize that you desire to solve the problem, and believe the policies you favor will solve the problem.

 

[southernhybrid]

I want affordable health care and affordable college, which is why I very much oppose the Democrat proposals that promise them.

Interesting. What's your plan?

Find the government interference that led to the prices going up, and eliminate that interference. .

If you're referring to health care prices, that really doesn't make any sense since government programs pay far less reimbursement rates compared to private insurance. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean. Do you mean that there shouldn't be any regulations when it comes to approving new drugs, or procedures? I hope not, because that's a pretty scary thought. Do you mean that government agencies shouldn't visit nursing homes and hospitals to make sure they are giving safe care? I want my care to have been tested and found to be safe in most cases. I once worked for the state of NC as a Medical Review Nurse. We went into nursing homes to review the care. Sometimes what we found was horrific. Do you mean that government agencies like that shouldn't exist? I'm confused. Could you explain what exactly you mean?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Find the government interference that led to the prices going up, and eliminate that interference. But you already knew that. You asked so you could draw me into a debate over the particulars of my beliefs instead of noticing the primary point I made.

Jimmy conflated wanting a particular outcome with wanting a particular set of proposals that may or may not lead to that outcome. I pointed out that I want the outcome but not the proposals. You don't want that to be the topic, you want it to be conventional wisdom that those proposals and those proposals alone lead to that outcome and anyone who opposes those proposals opposes that outcome.

If you're referring to health care prices, that really doesn't make any sense since government programs pay far less reimbursement rates compared to private insurance. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

I mean exactly what I wrote - that people conflate wanting to solve the problem with one and only one particular solution to the problem. One can want to solve a problem and disagree with your solution. I have a solution, you disagree with it, that doesn't mean I don't want to solve the problem and that doesn't mean you don't want to solve the problem.

 

[Elixir]

Find the government interference that led to the prices going up, and eliminate that interference.

Great idea! Drug and DME prices are up because greedy companies are now operating in a free-for-all environment with the Pharma lobbyists working for the Administration and vice versa. Get rid of that.
Then find the government interference that made costs go up, and eliminate that interference too. Drug costs are up because there are so many federal regulations, registrations, testing requirements, documentation etc. - hurdles that have to be cleared in order to bring drugs to market. Get rid of those needless hurdles. The market will sort itself out - vendors who sell poison will lose their clientele eventually, one way or another.

- page 185 "Why We Love Libertarianism"

 

[bilby]

Find the government interference that led to the prices going up, and eliminate that interference. But you already knew that. You asked so you could draw me into a debate over the particulars of my beliefs instead of noticing the primary point I made.

Jimmy conflated wanting a particular outcome with wanting a particular set of proposals that may or may not lead to that outcome. I pointed out that I want the outcome but not the proposals. You don't want that to be the topic, you want it to be conventional wisdom that those proposals and those proposals alone lead to that outcome and anyone who opposes those proposals opposes that outcome.

If you're referring to health care prices, that really doesn't make any sense since government programs pay far less reimbursement rates compared to private insurance. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

I mean exactly what I wrote - that people conflate wanting to solve the problem with one and only one particular solution to the problem. One can want to solve a problem and disagree with your solution. I have a solution, you disagree with it, that doesn't mean I don't want to solve the problem and that doesn't mean you don't want to solve the problem.

You don't have a solution, you have an ideology.

"The problem would go away if only everyone agreed with my ideas" isn't a solution, whether those ideas are more government, less government, no government, faith in God/Marx/Stalin/Hitler/Trump, prayer, veganism, or the power of crystals.

Even a workable ideology (if we could find one) wouldn't be a solution to any specific problem, any more than 'just repair it' is a solution to a mechanical failure. Solutions include details. Lots of details. Not just ideological platitudes - no matter how applicable and appropriate those platitudes might be.

And 'less government' isn't applicable or appropriate to most problems, at least while we live in a world where all people are ignorant of almost everything, and most are not even intelligent enough to realise the depth of their ignorance. Individuals aren't competent to do most things. That's why we have experts (who do one, or a very few, very narrow things very well); and collectives (be they families, companies, corporations, comittees, governments, councils, or communes) that can't equal the experts in their field of expertise, but can kick the arses of the experts in every other field of human endeavour.

The primacy of the individual is an ideology for toddlers. Fucking grow up.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I mean exactly what I wrote - that people conflate wanting to solve the problem with one and only one particular solution to the problem. One can want to solve a problem and disagree with your solution. I have a solution, you disagree with it, that doesn't mean I don't want to solve the problem and that doesn't mean you don't want to solve the problem.

You don't have a solution, you have an ideology.

As I wrote to Jimmy, I acknowledged that he desires to solve the problem, and that he believes his solution will solve the problem. I extend him that courtesy, I see you do not extend me that courtesy.

It is a common problem in politics. People say "I want to solve this problem, I have this proposed solution, and if you disagree with my solution that means you disagree with solving it at all." The Republicans love it, and use it on every single god damn foreign intervention. They saw a problem, terrorism. They proposed a solution, invade Iraq. I said invading Iraq won't solve anything. They accused me of wanting the terrorists to win.

Democrats love it even more than Republicans. They apply it to every single government program. I acknowledge that they desire to solve a problem, and believe their proposal will solve the problem. That doesn't mean I agree with their proposed solution. I disagree with their solution, but recognize they desire to solve the problem.

You say that because you say that because you don't agree with my proposed solution, therefore you accuse me of not wanting to solve the problem. Moreover you even go so far as saying that because you don't agree with my solution, therefore you say I don't have a solution at all. That's even worse than the fallacy others commit.

 

[bilby]

I mean exactly what I wrote - that people conflate wanting to solve the problem with one and only one particular solution to the problem. One can want to solve a problem and disagree with your solution. I have a solution, you disagree with it, that doesn't mean I don't want to solve the problem and that doesn't mean you don't want to solve the problem.

You don't have a solution, you have an ideology.

As I wrote to Jimmy, I acknowledged that he desires to solve the problem, and that he believes his solution will solve the problem. I extend him that courtesy, I see you do not extend me that courtesy.

You are seeking to elevate your mere ideology to the level of a solution. It's simplistic and childish, and to accept your conflating of the two would not be courteous so much as it would be dangerously stupid.

It is a common problem in politics. People say "I want to solve this problem, I have this proposed solution, and if you disagree with my solution that means you disagree with solving it at all." The Republicans love it, and use it on every single god damn foreign intervention. They saw a problem, terrorism. They proposed a solution, invade Iraq. I said invading Iraq won't solve anything. They accused me of wanting the terrorists to win.

I agree with all of that. But it doesn't make your position a solution - it's just the rejection of a bad solution, without proposing an alternative. In the Iraq case, doing nothing was a good alternative - but that doesn't make it a good alternative in all situations.

Democrats love it even more than Republicans. They apply it to every single government program. I acknowledge that they desire to solve a problem, and believe their proposal will solve the problem. That doesn't mean I agree with their proposed solution. I disagree with their solution, but recognize they desire to solve the problem.

You certainly seem to want to solve the problem; But you don't seem to recognise the difference between a solution and a mere ideology.

You say that because you say that because you don't agree with my proposed solution, therefore you accuse me of not wanting to solve the problem. Moreover you even go so far as saying that because you don't agree with my solution, therefore you say I don't have a solution at all. That's even worse than the fallacy others commit.

You haven't proposed a solution. You have reiterated a simplistic and childish ideological stance, which may be a precursor to a proposed solution, but it would be foolish to mistake it for a solution in itself.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As I wrote to Jimmy, I acknowledged that he desires to solve the problem, and that he believes his solution will solve the problem. I extend him that courtesy, I see you do not extend me that courtesy.

You are seeking to elevate your mere ideology to the level of a solution.

As I wrote, you're going a step farther and saying that because you disagree with what I propose therefore I propose nothing.

It is a common problem in politics. People say "I want to solve this problem, I have this proposed solution, and if you disagree with my solution that means you disagree with solving it at all." The Republicans love it, and use it on every single god damn foreign intervention. They saw a problem, terrorism. They proposed a solution, invade Iraq. I said invading Iraq won't solve anything. They accused me of wanting the terrorists to win.

I agree with all of that.

You agree that I wanted the terrorists to win?

You haven't proposed a solution. You have reiterated a simplistic and childish ideological stance, which may be a precursor to a proposed solution, but would be foolish to mistake it for a solution in itself.

That's because my participation in this part of this thread isn't to argue my solution, but to point out the fallacy of "if you don't agree with my solution it is because you don't want the problem solved". It is a common problem in politics, and you have an even worse case of it. You say "if I don't agree with your solution that means you don't have a solution at all." Someone less blinded would acknowledge that, however wrong you may think it is, I do have proposals. You only acknowledge those who agree with you as having any proposals. Since what they propose matches what you propose, you acknowledge their proposals as existing, and nobody else ever proposes anything.

 

[ZiprHead]

This healthcare debate should probably be split to it's own thread. Reported.

 

[bilby]

As I wrote, you're going a step farther and saying that because you disagree with what I propose therefore I propose nothing.

No, I am saying that because you propose nothing other than a broad ideology, you propose no solution. The two are not the same.

It is a common problem in politics. People say "I want to solve this problem, I have this proposed solution, and if you disagree with my solution that means you disagree with solving it at all." The Republicans love it, and use it on every single god damn foreign intervention. They saw a problem, terrorism. They proposed a solution, invade Iraq. I said invading Iraq won't solve anything. They accused me of wanting the terrorists to win.

I agree with all of that.

You agree that I wanted the terrorists to win?

Yes. Obviously.

You haven't proposed a solution. You have reiterated a simplistic and childish ideological stance, which may be a precursor to a proposed solution, but would be foolish to mistake it for a solution in itself.

That's because my participation in this part of this thread isn't to argue my solution, but to point out the fallacy of "if you don't agree with my solution it is because you don't want the problem solved". It is a common problem in politics, and you have an even worse case of it. You say "if I don't agree with your solution that means you don't have a solution at all." Someone less blinded would acknowledge that, however wrong you may think it is, I do have proposals. You only acknowledge those who agree with you as having any proposals. Since what they propose matches what you propose, you acknowledge their proposals as existing, and nobody else ever proposes anything.

So you agree that you haven't presented a solution. Thank you.

Your counterfactual assertion that I am engaged in some kind of error in reaching the conclusion you agree is correct is just bizarre. Perhaps you should have learned to think from someone competent, instead of from Ayn Rand.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you agree that you haven't presented a solution. Thank you.

I agree you see I haven't one, I agree you say I haven't one. And I agree that the reason you see that and say that is because any proposal that isn't yours obviously doesn't exist.

You prove my point so very well, I couldn't have asked for a better example. You are even more extreme than my original observation.

 

[Copernicus]

So you agree that you haven't presented a solution. Thank you.

I agree you see I haven't one, I agree you say I haven't one. And I agree that the reason you see that and say that is because any proposal that isn't yours obviously doesn't exist.

You prove my point so very well, I couldn't have asked for a better example. You are even more extreme than my original observation.

Jason, I also agree with bilby's criticism. You started with the premise that the government was the cause of the problem. You did not back up that assumption. Then your "plan" was to find the imaginary cause of the problem and fix it. You gratuitously identified an unspecified cause, and then you said "find it and fix it". If that is your idea of a plan, then you have no idea what a plan is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I want affordable health care and affordable college, which is why I very much oppose the Democrat proposals that promise them.

Interesting. What's your plan?

If the Government stops providing loans, fewer people will be able to afford college. This will make college affordable because they'll drop their prices so that people can afford to go again. This is of course contingent upon the price of college being 80% arbitrary.

Exactly--it's contingent upon something that doesn't appear to be true.

The cost of public college has actually be rising at a reasonable rate. It only appears to be going up rapidly because the government is contributing less and less. The per-student budget tells a very different story than the tuition does.

The elite private colleges might be charging what the market will bear, we don't have good data there but they certainly aren't going to be cheaper to run than the public universities.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you agree that you haven't presented a solution. Thank you.

I agree you see I haven't one, I agree you say I haven't one. And I agree that the reason you see that and say that is because any proposal that isn't yours obviously doesn't exist.

You prove my point so very well, I couldn't have asked for a better example. You are even more extreme than my original observation.

Jason, I also agree with bilby's criticism. You started with the premise that the government was the cause of the problem. You did not back up that assumption. Then your "plan" was to find the imaginary cause of the problem and fix it. You gratuitously identified an unspecified cause, and then you said "find it and fix it". If that is your idea of a plan, then you have no idea what a plan is.

Because I wasn't talking about what my solution was, but was talking about the idea of "if you don't agree with my solution it means you don't want the problem solved." I'm trying to avoid a derail into the specifics of what I propose as a solution, and keep it on the topic of how "wanting to solve the problem" and "agreeing with one and only one solution" are not the same thing.

Instead of demonstrating that I'm not proposing anything, bilby actually proved my point better than I could have hoped. I am discussing the fallacy of "if you don't agree with my proposed solution it means you don't want the problem solved."

 

[ZiprHead]

Jason, I also agree with bilby's criticism. You started with the premise that the government was the cause of the problem. You did not back up that assumption. Then your "plan" was to find the imaginary cause of the problem and fix it. You gratuitously identified an unspecified cause, and then you said "find it and fix it". If that is your idea of a plan, then you have no idea what a plan is.

Because I wasn't talking about what my solution was, but was talking about the idea of "if you don't agree with my solution it means you don't want the problem solved." I'm trying to avoid a derail into the specifics of what I propose as a solution, and keep it on the topic of how "wanting to solve the problem" and "agreeing with one and only one solution" are not the same thing.

What is the purpose of that other than just sucking your own dick?

 

[angelo]

Perhaps the solution is to adopt Cuba's healthcare system. I'm sure the medicos would appreciate being paid peanuts.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jason, I also agree with bilby's criticism. You started with the premise that the government was the cause of the problem. You did not back up that assumption. Then your "plan" was to find the imaginary cause of the problem and fix it. You gratuitously identified an unspecified cause, and then you said "find it and fix it". If that is your idea of a plan, then you have no idea what a plan is.

Because I wasn't talking about what my solution was, but was talking about the idea of "if you don't agree with my solution it means you don't want the problem solved." I'm trying to avoid a derail into the specifics of what I propose as a solution, and keep it on the topic of how "wanting to solve the problem" and "agreeing with one and only one solution" are not the same thing.

What is the purpose of that other than just sucking your own dick?

I think he wants to ignore the fact that wanting to solve a problem means jack shit without proposing a solution? So, in other words, to just sick his own dick and "virtue signal". Never thought I'd see myself using that term!

For a virtue to be meaningful, it has to come with implementation.