466 replies to this topic

[Alaskan Viking]

CaveMan, on 15 August 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

, a market economy without democratic principles (modern-day China, Argentina under Pinochet),

There are lots of falsehoods in your post that I could correct, but I do not have time, so I will merely point out this one..

Augusto Pinochet was the leader of Chile, not Argentina....

Catamount, on 22 September 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Fortunately, no one running for any position of government of note that I'm aware of has any interest in turning the United States into a fundamentally socialist nation and tossing out our market economy; the closest thing getting any traction is a more socialized health care system which works better than our system, hence why basically everyone else uses such a system (paying less and getting better average outcomes). And while there are people foolish enough to want to take us down the road to Europe's dead economy, where huge spending cuts have ground their already-hurting economies to a halt, and go even further by abolishing basically every part of the federal government except the department of defense, polls aren't really favoring those people right now.

First off, there is no proof that socialized healthcare works better. The fact that America has had the best doctors and hospitals IN THE WORLD for the last 50+ years should be enough to convince any sane person that free market healthcare works.

And second, "our system" as it stand now, is NOT free market. The government already spends over 600 BILLION dollars a year on socialized healthcare services, and loses about 60 billion a year in fraud.

60 billion is ~ the same amount of money the military spent to make the F-22.

60 billion dollars is more money than the entire health insurance industry makes in profits each year.

And our existing government healthcare programs lose that much in fraud each year.

The healthcare industry in the United States is, already, one of, if not the most, heavily regulated and subsidized industries in the nation, and the notion that MORE regulation and subsides will make it better is, quite frankly, absurd.

Edited by Alaskan Viking, 22 September 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Magnificent Bastard]

Loc ***, on 22 September 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Depressing to see how much these threads smell like Fox News...

To be fair many of the other news networks (all?) smell pretty vile as well. Although I do believe the FOX pundits are particularly offensive.

[Lemmywinks]

Rizartha, on 14 August 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

I find it amusing that Mitt Romny's buisness practices have resulted in Italy declaring him Persona non grata.

Look here

The only way to get anything done in Italy is to bribe your way through the corruption. I wouldn't want to do business there either.

[Stormgage]

Magnificent *******, on 22 September 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

To be fair many of the other news networks (all?) smell pretty vile as well. Although I do believe the FOX pundits are particularly offensive.

The fox pudits dont pretend to be news reporters, unlike the obviously biased reporters at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN. 95% of the reporters are dems at those networks.. FOX has a 60 40 ratio.. at least they try. Thats why FOX has been gaining audience ane all others are losing.

[Catamount]

Alaskan Viking, on 22 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

First off, there is no proof that socialized healthcare works better. The fact that America has had the best doctors and hospitals IN THE WORLD for the last 50+ years should be enough to convince any sane person that free market healthcare works.

And second, "our system" as it stand now, is NOT free market. The government already spends over 600 BILLION dollars a year on socialized healthcare services, and loses about 60 billion a year in fraud.

60 billion is ~ the same amount of money the military spent to make the F-22.

60 billion dollars is more money than the entire health insurance industry makes in profits each year.

And our existing government healthcare programs lose that much in fraud each year.

The healthcare industry in the United States is, already, one of, if not the most, heavily regulated and subsidized industries in the nation, and the notion that MORE regulation and subsides will make it better is, quite frankly, absurd.

Oh really? Our health care system is so amazing is it? We pay more money towards US health care than any other nation on Earth, and not by a little bit. We pay half again in GDP what even the "expensive" health care systems in France and Switzerland cost, and about double what Australia's costs (again, relative to GDP).

I would expect us to have amazing care for what we pay, except that 1 in 6 Americans don't get access to any of that. Lest I imply that they're the only ones without significant health care access, many of the insured are no better off. According to a survey done in 2007 by Consumer Reports, over 40% of insured Americans said they wouldn't financially survive a medical emergency. In total, somewhere between 40% and 50% of Americans either have no health care insurance, or such inadequate insurance, that they might as well be uninsured.

I guess considering they have access to more spending than any other nation's population on Earth, those privileged few who aren't completely left out in the cold, and get to hog that to themselves, probably do have access to decent care, but it certainly doesn't reflect well in our averages. We have terrible life expectancy (partly explained by our bad habits? Possibly, but other nations with higher smoking and alcohol consumption rates beat us by a mile, so that stale excuse only goes so far), our infant mortality rates are so bad that we're basically tied with Lithuania (we're #50 overall; almost no industrialized nation does worse), and let's not forget post-infant deaths. In 2010 an estimated twenty six thousand people died from lack of insurance, TWENTY six thousand (http://www.reuters.c...E85J15720120620). That's about three people an hour. Since you posted, about fifteen people died from our great health care system; I'm sure they were very comforted by the fact that you think our hospitals are great.

Ironically, part of the costs of our healthcare system are because of the costs. Not all that money goes towards giving the lucky 50% with good coverage great service; a lot of it is due to the lack of emphasis on preventative care. Health care is poorly afforded by many, so it's avoided, put off as much as possible, until problems balloon into big expensive catastrophes that would have cost much less to fix had they been addressed much earlier as you'd see in, say, Australia or France, where people universally have coverage, where many have supplemental insurance, and where if one is sick, they overwhelmingly see a doctor rather than putting it off because it costs too much (because for them it doesn't).

The other reason our health care system often costs so much money is because we're a victim of our own success. Hospitals such up a tremendous amount of the money from our system (30%ish? don't recall the exact figure) and yet are financially struggling. Why? Because they have to spend inefficiently to satisfy demand. Come out with an MRI machine that's 3% better than the model from two years ago, and every hospital has to get one, because if they don't constantly sell how cutting edge they are, they risk losing business. Constant expenditures on the latest and greatest are just one of many symptoms of the lack of cost control in our system (which you amusingly imply is too regulated), in the wake of the fall of the managed care system of the 1990s.

That problem of ballooning costs then self-exacerbates by coming back to the uninsured. Many of the people who are uninsured or abandoning the system in droves are people my age, your 20-30 year olds, who basically subsidize the system by being healthy, and statistically putting in more than we take out (essentially in exchange for catastrophe insurance), but who also typically have little money and large amounts of debt, and are just getting established financially, and so don't have mountains of disposable income, and when we leave, the risk pool suffers as there becomes less money coming in on average than going out, which causes health care to get more expensive, which causes more low-risk and low-income people to leave, which repeats the cycle, endlessly (this is a huge part of what ACA sought to solve; whether it'll be successful or not... well we'll see).


The number of different problems in our system, from worsening finances from all sides (higher costs and less money coming in to pay them as the risk pool collapses), to the sheer number of people who are simply shafted by the system, often people who are insured, but aren't really covered, is so staggering, it's hard to believe anyone thinks our system works in its present form, and let's not even get into insurance death panels, denial of insurance to people who do want to take part in the system, insurance companies who will drop needed coverage the moment a patient gets sick by nitpicking over their applications (which they intentionally write to be as confusing as possible so that people will make a mistake somewhere, which they can later use as an excuse to deny you coverage, after you've paid for years, the moment you actually need it, hiring people specifically for that job, and paying them based on how many people they deny coverage to), etc etc.

So please, tell me again about how our system is so awesome? We spend tons, and get abysmal average outcomes, while suffering behavior by insurance companies (again, who you imply are TOO regulated) that borders on criminal.


Now, I'm not so dichotomous on this issue as you seem to be. I have no interest in a purely single-payer health care system. The more effective systems on Earth seem to be hybrid systems, with combinations of universal public coverage supplemented by a healthy private industry. You might hate any and all government, but far from being your counterpart on the other side of the political spectrum, I do not hate private industry; I very much like the private sector, even if I think there is a place for government.

Oh, and that $60 billion figure you cited? It was misreported by the news agencies. That figure was an estimate for all of health care fraud, public and private, not just medicare fraud. No one really knows how much medicare fraud costs. Yes, that scares me too, and yes, it's a definite problem to address that's a source of frustration with the system; I freely admit that. Again, I'm not the dichotomous sort here, and I don't think that every human system has to be either made of pure gold, or abysmally bad. Most sit somewhere between. To point to a flaw in a system and suggest that therefore, it must be unequivocally bad, while the alternative must automatically be unequivocally good, is absurd, hence why, despite flaws, I want to keep the private system around (as much as you seem to want to abolish the public system for what seem like much smaller flaws).

Quote

"our system" as it stand now, is NOT free market

You don't say...

Of course it isn't a purist, unregulated market like that of Gilded Age America, or a market economy that accounts for all economics; we have a hybrid system, just like what every other successful industrialized nation uses. A market economy with numerous and often large private businesses is still a major component of that.



Edit: had to change the number of people who died from lack of insurance, because our health care system killed three more from the time I began the post to the time I finished.

Edited by Catamount, 22 September 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[process]

Stormgage, on 22 September 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

If you want to know who Obama is read his 2 autobiographies...shocking....if the mainstream media had vetted Obama like the vet republican candidates, Obama would be pounding sand...

Maybe they should have spent less time focusing on the whole birther thing. You'd think 4 years would be enough.

Stormgage, on 22 September 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

He attends 43% of his national security briefings, no wonder he's clueless.

Obama receives daily security reports in lieu of oral briefings: http://abcnews.go.co...ence-briefings/

Stormgage, on 22 September 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

One of the first things he did when he entered office was return the bust of Winston Churchill.. How you like that UK. That was payback for your colonization of Kenya by the way.

There were 2 busts, one was returned because it was on loan, and the other relocated to the White House. http://www.whitehous...nston-churchill
http://www.whitehous...les-krauthammer

Stormgage, on 22 September 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

He's had his face and his logo put in place of the stars on the American flag at events..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the face flag seems to be an independent creation, not designed by the Obama campaign. As for the official logo, it's not like the flag hasn't been used before.

http://littlegreenfo...20/scan0282.jpg
http://littlegreenfo.../16366_full.jpg
http://littlegreenfo.../20/82143-2.jpg

Edited by process, 23 September 2012 - 12:16 AM.

[Pht]

process, on 05 September 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

It's not a black and white issue. There is the reasonable safety precaution of locking your doors, then there are absurd precautions. There are, on average, 31 firearm-related homicides every day. That's far less than the number of burglaries, but far more than the amount of impersonation vote fraud; do you always wear body armor?

In this case, the laws do far more harm than good. As I stated in my last post, upwards of 21 million people could be negatively affected. The better analogy is, "locking your doors, but some of your family members don't have a key".

I realize that there is a calculation; there is nothing new about that - I simply disagree with you that it is unreasonable to require a photo id to vote.

You continue to complain that the effect is negative, but yet you still haven't answered why the many other things that require photo ID to do don't also have the same negative effect; or if they do, why you haven't complained about them equally.

Quote

Better than forcing the rest of us to pay for someone else's costs. The alternative, obviously, is to deny care to people who can't pay, and that's barbaric.


What's the alternative to "forcing hospitals and such to fix people up"?

Obamacare DOES exactly this: forces everyone to pay for everyone else. What you propose as an obvious alternative is not the obvious alternative; it is simply the one you apparently want people to think applies to those who disagree with your position.

----

What's the alternative? People who think the government can do charity -

government can't do charity... just handing out someone else's money that you stole from them is not charity...

- pull their hands out of their neighbors pockets and and actually engages in charity with their own money, that's what. People really care will step up and quit being a cheap hypocrites with everyone else's money. More good will be done than the current theft-based fraud perpetrated as "government welfare."

Quote

It disproportionately affects minorities, with zero net benefit. The intent is clear: prevent these people from voting, and Mitt Romney wins.

"Disproportiantely" - disproprtianetly in relation to what? As for the intent; it is not clear; the only intent stated is to make voting fraud harder or to stop voting fraud. You are reading your own conclusion into what's been said, not reading the meaning out of what's been said by those proposing these changes.

Quote

Things like voter ID laws and restricting women's healthcare choices are evidence that these things are still happening.

Because that is a fact. It was a point sample in the spectrum of voting rights violations, and far less damaging than what the voter ID laws do.

You still have not shown any valid reasons for anyone to accept your argument that requring photo id to vote is racist.

As for "women's health-care" ... I presume you are referring to pre-birth infanticide and universal contraceptive availability to everyone regardless of age? That is usually what "women's rights" refers to, never mind the results for unborn females. Orwellian double-speak at its "best."

----

It's a fact? Strange, and I thought it was based upon another theory, thus making it an opinion. Facts are "given things," not opinions. Even accepting it as a fact, it still gives the appearance that you were trying to bias the readers for no good reason.

Quote

The context has everything to do with the Fifteenth Amendment. There are a myriad of things we are not entitled to. The fact is, millions of people don't have photo ID, and how they function without it is not my concern; they still have the right to vote.



I guess I can use the money I'm saving to purchase some Kevlar.

constitution, amendment 15 said:

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Requiring a photo id to vote does not deny nor arbridge anyones "right to vote," and yet again, the reason the changes are being made is to make it harder to commit voting fraud. You appealed to the reward/risk calculation, and yet ignore it here. The door is wide open to commit voting fraud this way. In fact, you could, say, even impersonate the head of the DOJ and get his form to vote on, and nobody would ask you a question.

[Pht]

Catamount, on 05 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but the logic here is just so deeply flawed, that I can't resist.

And yet you haven't demonstrated the fallacy.

Quote

You seem to be desperately trying to divert the topic with a textbook red herring.

It is not a red herring to ask why someone is not applying their supposedly objective standards in a completely subjective and apparently hypocritcal way.

The exact same complaint about photo ids "disproportiantely affecting the (insert Politically Correct victim class here)" applies in all of the other mentioned cases.

It is entirely relevant to the topic at hand, if someone is selectively applying what are supposed to be objective standards.

Quote

what you advocate is not, because there is zero demonstrable reason, of any kind, to institute what you're advocating.

What would you like with your crow?

Quote

There is zero reason because you can't even demonstrate that there's a significant problem occurring that needs to be solved in the first place.

which is not the argument I've made. The argument is that the effect of requring photo ID to vote is negligible and that the so-called "discrimination" it would cause simply does not exist. The arguments that say it would disenfranchise a huge amount of people are nothing more than invalid wind-blowing; and the argment is hypocritical because if the problem really did exist, it would apply equally to huge amounts of life for those who would supposedly be affected ... and it doesn't happen in these other equal instances.

It seems you wouldn't lock your car doors, simply because your car had never been broken into.

[Vanguard319]

Catamount, on 22 September 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Well since Europe would tell you that massive austerity programs fail about as reliably as socialism (at least such as been the result post-2008 for them; austerity has been a catastrophe), I find both choices in your false dichotomy to be unencouraging.

Fortunately, no one running for any position of government of note that I'm aware of has any interest in turning the United States into a fundamentally socialist nation and tossing out our market economy; the closest thing getting any traction is a more socialized health care system which works better than our system, hence why basically everyone else uses such a system (paying less and getting better average outcomes). And while there are people foolish enough to want to take us down the road to Europe's dead economy, where huge spending cuts have ground their already-hurting economies to a halt, and go even further by abolishing basically every part of the federal government except the department of defense, polls aren't really favoring those people right now.

So the moral of the story is that neither form of extremism will likely take hold, and we'll probably find a middle ground between the two, and if people can be adults and discuss and compromise and actually, you know, govern, we'll probably end up coming out of this just fine, no radical restructuring of the US required.

True, except it seems like people nowadays refuse to make consessions, like their world view is the only view that actually matters. I have actually been threatened (by my father no less.) that if I vote for Obama, (and by extension, any Democrat) I will be shot...

First, I wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway, since I don't believe he did anything worthwhile enough to stay on as president. Second, my father loves to call Obama a communist, but by telling me who I can and can't vote for, and trying to coerce me through the threat of violence, how is his view any better? threats like that would sooner make me abstain from the vote.

Looks like Al Qeada aren't the only fanatics we need to worry about. With all these political crazies running around who unconditionally cling to every piece of propaganda that thier chosen party releases like drowning men at a piece of floating debris. I honestly don't see the middle ground getting reached anytime soon.

[Pht]

Catamount, on 22 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Oh really? Our health care system is so amazing is it?

it's nowhere near what it sould be, but as far as it goes ... just ask the canadians who come here in lieu of dying in a wating queue for things like cat scans and such. There is no option in canada; you simply wait and die.

Here, at least, you could sell a car, take out a loan, or do something else and get your needed procedure *quickly.*

Quote

We pay more money towards US health care than any other nation on Earth, and not by a little bit. We pay half again in GDP what even the "expensive" health care systems in France and Switzerland cost, and about double what Australia's costs (again, relative to GDP).

What do you expect, when the government distorts the medical market into a bloated disaster?

You can't even get a PRICE on most hospital procedures because of the horrible market distortions due to government intervention.

Quote

... 1 in 6 Americans don't get access to any of that.

This is not possible to know.

Quite frankly, the costs are out of control because of government intervention and the "spending other people's money" effect that the current setups engage in.

What people seem to be ignorant of is the fact that when they pay for things, they are "voting" in a system that controls the prices. If nobody chooses to pay for something, the prices go down; if everyone "votes" with large amounts of money, the prices go up and up and up.

Edited by Pht, 29 September 2012 - 04:07 PM.

[process]

Pht, on 29 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

I realize that there is a calculation; there is nothing new about that - I simply disagree with you that it is unreasonable to require a photo id to vote.

You continue to complain that the effect is negative, but yet you still haven't answered why the many other things that require photo ID to do don't also have the same negative effect; or if they do, why you haven't complained about them equally.

Those other things you listed really don't matter to me, and are not being used by one of the two major political parties in this country in an attempt to skew the upcoming election.

Pht, on 29 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Obamacare DOES exactly this: forces everyone to pay for everyone else.

Everyone pays in and everyone benefits. Again, that's how all insurance works. I don't know why that's so surprising.

Pht, on 29 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

What you propose as an obvious alternative is not the obvious alternative; it is simply the one you apparently want people to think applies to those who disagree with your position.


----

What's the alternative? People who think the government can do charity -

government can't do charity... just handing out someone else's money that you stole from them is not charity...

- pull their hands out of their neighbors pockets and and actually engages in charity with their own money, that's what. People really care will step up and quit being a cheap hypocrites with everyone else's money. More good will be done than the current theft-based fraud perpetrated as "government welfare."

You're presupposing every American could afford to cover all their healthcare costs. That is absurd.

Thank goodness we have emergency rooms.

Pht, on 29 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

"Disproportiantely" - disproprtianetly in relation to what? As for the intent; it is not clear; the only intent stated is to make voting fraud harder or to stop voting fraud. You are reading your own conclusion into what's been said, not reading the meaning out of what's been said by those proposing these changes.

You still have not shown any valid reasons for anyone to accept your argument that requring photo id to vote is racist.

I've repeatedly posted figures and statistics, please go back and review them. Alternately, you have not shown any reason why we should require it. The right has made the claim it is necessary, yet has failed to produce evidence, and in several cases, shown it statistically never happens.

Pht, on 29 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

As for "women's health-care" ... I presume you are referring to pre-birth infanticide and universal contraceptive availability to everyone regardless of age? That is usually what "women's rights" refers to, never mind the results for unborn females. Orwellian double-speak at its "best."

Loaded phrasing aside, yes.

Pht, on 29 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

It's a fact? Strange, and I thought it was based upon another theory, thus making it an opinion. Facts are "given things," not opinions. Even accepting it as a fact, it still gives the appearance that you were trying to bias the readers for no good reason.

The New Black Panther incident happened once, fact. I don't know why you're contesting that.

Pht, on 29 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Requiring a photo id to vote does not deny nor arbridge anyones "right to vote," and yet again, the reason the changes are being made is to make it harder to commit voting fraud. You appealed to the reward/risk calculation, and yet ignore it here. The door is wide open to commit voting fraud this way. In fact, you could, say, even impersonate the head of the DOJ and get his form to vote on, and nobody would ask you a question.

I have been using the same risk/reward comparison this entire time: millions negatively affected, statistically zero impersonation fraud.

We're going in circles here. Don't bother responding unless you produce figures showing otherwise.

[Pht]

process, on 29 September 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Those other things you listed really don't matter to me, and are not being used by one of the two major political parties in this country in an attempt to skew the upcoming election.

So you don't care if you apply your standard everywhere it applies? You have no problem being a hypocrite? That is exactly the way you are applying your standard for judgement; only where you want to, not everywere it applies eqaully.

----

So far you have not given anyone any valid reason argued from true premises to believe your assertation that the republican party is trying to use this to skew the upcoming election.

Quote

Everyone pays in and everyone benefits. Again, that's how all insurance works. I don't know why that's so surprising.

First you complain that you have to pay for others under the current medical system; than you propose that everyone should have to pay for everyone else...

Geeze. Make your mind up.

Quote

You're presupposing every American could afford to cover all their healthcare costs. That is absurd.

Thank goodness we have emergency rooms.

I am? Funny... I never posted this explicitly or implicitly. In other words, I've not posted what you've said I presupposed.

... why do people think they can refute other people's arguments by arguing against things they've never put forth?

Quote

I've repeatedly posted figures and statistics, please go back and review them. Alternately, you have not shown any reason why we should require it. The right has made the claim it is necessary, yet has failed to produce evidence, and in several cases, shown it statistically never happens.

... and why do you think I've not reviewed the scientific data you've posted? Simply because I disagree with you?

I have shown why we should require it. Did you miss the video? All that has to be done to commit massive voter id fraud is for ... someone to do it. There is nearly nothing in place to stop this fraud.

On statistics; they do not and can not and never will, by their very nature, reveal any truth. They stand on flawed epistemological foundations and they are an excuse used by bureaucrats to take more and more control of our lives.

Quote

Loaded phrasing aside, yes.

Phrasing loaded with truth. The "women's rights" doublespeak is an irrational mystic mantra used in a vain attempt to cover up what's really being discussed.

Quote

The New Black Panther incident happened once, fact. I don't know why you're contesting that.

I'm not contesting how many times it happened. I'm questioning what reason you had and have for mentioning its singularity as if it was a mitigating factor.

Quote

We're going in circles here. Don't bother responding unless you produce figures showing otherwise.

We're going in circles here. Don't bother responding unless you can produce a logical argument from true premises that is formally and informally correct instead of one based upon always-false inductions based upon incomplete and un-trustworthy sensory observations.

Edited by Pht, 03 October 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[process]

Pht, on 03 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

So you don't care if you apply your standard everywhere it applies? You have no problem being a hypocrite? That is exactly the way you are applying your standard for judgement; only where you want to, not everywere it applies eqaully.

----

So far you have not given anyone any valid reason argued from true premises to believe your assertation that the republican party is trying to use this to skew the upcoming election.

I have already stated, those other things are not Constitutional rights, and certainly not relevant to the upcoming election. The evidence that this is being done to skew the election is obvious:

1. There is statistically zero impersonation fraud, and the biggest sources are committed by campaign and election officials and falsified registrations -- things that IDs would not prevent.
2. These photo ID laws are being coordinated across states with Republican legislatures to go into effect before the upcoming election.
3. Concurrently, these states are attempting to reduce early voting hours and erroneously purge voter registration lists.
4. Millions across the country do not have acceptable photo ID.
5. There does not seem to be any interest in actually helping people obtain free IDs.

Do I need to link to this again?

If there was a provision in these laws to actually help every eligible voter to get a free ID (so as not to run afoul of Amendment 24) by the time of the election, I would have absolutely no problem with it. Obviously people are better off with ID, but that's not an immediate concern.

Pht, on 03 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

First you complain that you have to pay for others under the current medical system; than you propose that everyone should have to pay for everyone else...

Geeze. Make your mind up.

The prior has to do with people receiving benefits without paying into the system. The latter is people paying into the system, and distributing that money across all participants in the pool: this is risk distribution, and it is the fundamental principle behind insurance.

If you are uninsured, and can't pay for your Emergency room visit, who do you think is ultimately paying for that?
If you are paying for insurance, and do not require immediate medical care, who do you think is benefiting?

Each person who pays in helps everyone, because eventually, everyone will help you.

Pht, on 03 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

I am? Funny... I never posted this explicitly or implicitly. In other words, I've not posted what you've said I presupposed.

... why do people think they can refute other people's arguments by arguing against things they've never put forth?

By all means, correct me. How does your ideal healthcare system function?

Pht, on 03 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

... and why do you think I've not reviewed the scientific data you've posted? Simply because I disagree with you?

I have shown why we should require it. Did you miss the video? All that has to be done to commit massive voter id fraud is for ... someone to do it. There is nearly nothing in place to stop this fraud.

Because you repeat the same objections in the face of the evidence I have provided. Please, show me where there has been significant impersonation fraud. It's going to take more than one instance to demonstrate a systemic problem worth preventing potentially millions from voting. We've already been through the alien insurance comparison.

Pht, on 03 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

On statistics; they do not and can not and never will, by their very nature, reveal any truth. They stand on flawed epistemological foundations and they are an excuse used by bureaucrats to take more and more control of our lives.

Review the means and methods then. Dismissing all statistics because some are unreliable is silly. I can cite logical fallacies too! Looks like yours applies here too: http://en.wikipedia....rical_inference

Pht, on 03 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Phrasing loaded with truth. The "women's rights" doublespeak is an irrational mystic mantra used in a vain attempt to cover up what's really being discussed.

If you'd like to propose a topic for discussion, I'd be happy to entertain.

Pht, on 03 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

We're going in circles here. Don't bother responding unless you can produce a logical argument from true premises that is formally and informally correct instead of one based upon always-false inductions based upon incomplete and un-trustworthy sensory observations.

You know, I shouldn't even have to be arguing here. The Right is making the case that voter fraud is significant enough to legislate against -- the burden of proof is on them. I have merely shown that the numbers do not agree, and certainly not at the cost of the voters it puts in jeopardy.

Edited by process, 03 October 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[process]

Also, what did you guys make of tonight's debate? I thought Romney made a strong show, and I suspect polls tomorrow will show him as the winner by a small margin. I really wish Obama nailed him on that $716 billion medicare lie.

I also wish Jim Lehrer was a better moderator.

Edited by process, 03 October 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[Catamount]

process, on 03 October 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Review the means and methods then. Dismissing all statistics because some are unreliable is silly.

Statistics are not, in an of themselves, unreliable, nor do they meet Pht's description of "they do not and can not and never will, by their very nature, reveal any truth. They stand on flawed epistemological foundations and they are an excuse used by bureaucrats to take more and more control of our lives".


Statistics are at tool, like anything else, and they can be used incorrectly, but the wonderful thing about statistics is that if they were, and decent information about their methods was provided, then that improper use can be corrected, or at least specifically identified. If such information wasn't provided (say, a claim was made that Americans have 78% chance to be killed by guns, and elaborated on no further), then it's grounds to dismiss any statements made based on them, since verifiability is an integral component to any statement in statistics (it's we know one didn't just "make it up").


PhT is essentially just peddling classic anti-intellectualism, and clearly just doesn't understand statistics, and so, rather than bothering to try, proudly proclaims how he doesn't accept them. A wide assortment of statistical methods have been used in science for well over a century; somehow I doubt that, if I were to provide such a scientific paper, that PhT would be forthcoming with any kind of rebuttal (or he would and it would consist solely of "they used statistics, and statistics are wrong!").


At least such statements are revealing about him, though. You remark that the burden of proof is on him to show that there's an actual statistically significant problem that requires laws to fix, and his response is "[Statistical methodologies are wrong!]". Yep, okay


I kind of wonder why you even bothered after that, since such statements show his fundamental thinking to be so wrong, that he's way beyond being corrected by mere evidence, operating on such fallacious fundamental premises. Why bother to discuss with someone who makes it a point to toss around every logical fallacy in the book, and treat evidence in such a way that he just declares anything inconvenient to him to be epistemologically flawed.


Why do you think I've stopped bothering? The last paragraph in his response to me is rife with obvious fallacies, yet, take just the last sentence. If I had responded to his statement "It seems you wouldn't lock your car doors, simply because your car had never been broken into", establishing a false equivalency between that and voter ID laws, by pointing out that I could demonstrate a statistically significant problem with car theft, and could statistically show risk for a given person living in my area to justify such a non-burdensome action, he'd just respond with "Oh, well, statistics are inherently invalid, therefore that doesn't mean anything".

This is the same guy who showed me accusing him of a logical fallacy, claimed I didn't show said fallacy, and then entirely ignored the 50-60% of my post that was spent showing that fallacy, neither quoting nor addressing a single bit of it. My, how it must be easy to claim someone didn't post something when you can just pretend that part of a post doesn't exist

Process, you've shown an amazing amount of patience with this kind of nonsense. That, or you just really enjoy the sensation of your head impacting the nearest wall, repeatedly. Nevertheless, there really isn't anything to be gained anymore. He won't be convinced, and anyone who doesn't see the transparent flaws in his reasoning won't be either. Of course, if you like banging your head against a wall, then maybe that's reason enough to continue

Quote

Also, what did you guys make of tonight's debate? I thought Romney made a strong show, and I suspect polls tomorrow will show him as the winner by a small margin. I really wish Obama nailed him on that $716 billion medicare lie.

I also wish Jim Lehrer was a better moderator.

A better moderator wouldn't have helped. Obama, who hasn't before had a problem with debates, was completely off of his game the entire night.

The president showed low energy compared to his opponent, uncharacteristic of Obama, and didn't go after a lot of things nearly aggressively enough, allowing Romney to score a lot of free hits on him. Obama did okay for the first half of the debate, not fantastically, but certainly alright; he just completely fizzled down the line.

Edited by Catamount, 04 October 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[Voridan Atreides]

All I'm going to say is.....I really hope Obama does not get into office again. I'm sure I will bombed with hate comments so I will never look at this thread again so don't bother....lol.


VOTE OBAMA IF YOU ENJOY NO FREEDOMS AND GETTING OWNED BY CHINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Niko Snow, 21 October 2012 - 07:02 PM.
Font Resized

[process]

Catamount, on 04 October 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

Process, you've shown an amazing amount of patience with this kind of nonsense. That, or you just really enjoy the sensation of your head impacting the nearest wall, repeatedly. Nevertheless, there really isn't anything to be gained anymore. He won't be convinced, and anyone who doesn't see the transparent flaws in his reasoning won't be either. Of course, if you like banging your head against a wall, then maybe that's reason enough to continue

I wasn't planning on that last post, but watching the debate got me all hot and bothered.

Catamount, on 04 October 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

A better moderator wouldn't have helped. Obama, who hasn't before had a problem with debates, was completely off of his game the entire night.

The president showed low energy compared to his opponent, uncharacteristic of Obama, and didn't go after a lot of things nearly aggressively enough, allowing Romney to score a lot of free hits on him. Obama did okay for the first half of the debate, not fantastically, but certainly alright; he just completely fizzled down the line.

I'm not at all suggesting Mr. Lehrer would have helped Obama's lacking performance. It was just sort of embarrassing to watch him get taken advantage of.



I sincerely hope Obama took those punches to draw out material for the next round. From my own impression, and from the post-debate analyses I read through this morning, I get the sense that Romney went off-script a little, and took a fair amount of risks in what he disclosed, and I hope his claims don't go unchallenged.

Edited by process, 04 October 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[Catamount]

Yeah, look, we've had many, many great political/societal discussions here, not arguments where we get into contests over who can omit and distort the other's post the most, but actual discussions, between pragmatic people looking to exchange ideas and facts, and either look for common ground or at least consider alternate viewpoints. That just isn't happening here anymore, and I'm pretty sure "I don't care if statistics refute me, statistics are all wrong, therefore I won't consider your evidence" ended that discussion (actually it was over long before then, that just sort of doubly ended it). That's a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid ideological position, not the making of a reasoned discussion. If someone is willing to go to that length to "win the argument", then they can "win", as far as I'm concerned.

Some day, we'll have this discussion properly, in a thread with a more positive tone -I mean, the title "political crap storm" was never a very promising beginning- and with people more interested in actual discussion. In the meantime, out society will continue growing and changing, much as it has for the past 200 years, and the kicking and screaming of reactionaries isn't going to do much to change that (you know, just like it hasn't for the past 200 years).

process, on 04 October 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

I sincerely hope Obama took those punches to draw out material for the next round. From my own impression, and from the post-debate analyses I read through this morning, I get the sense that Romney went off-script a little, and took a fair amount of risks in what he disclosed, and I hope his claims don't go unchallenged.

It's hard to say, honestly. Again, Obama was uncharacteristically very low energy during most of that debate, and it just got worse and worse as it went on, with him fizzling almost entirely halfway through. It seemed like his problems had less to do with lacking rebuttals (indeed, he prebutted the $716 billion medicare claim) as it did him just seeming to lack any energy.

If anything, Obama seemed to do a much better job in terms of actually outlining specific policies. Romney relied on vague statements like "I think education should be strong" and "we should open up trade", and never once going into how he expected to pay for the 20% tax rate cut, which will, in fact, result in a $5 trillion revenue loss, besides making a vague allusion to how "growth" would pay for it all (funny, we had plenty of tax cuts from 2001-2009; I didn't see much "growth" offsetting that revenue loss). Obama, by contrast, stated how he would make education stronger, citing how many new teachers he would seek to hire, and how much money he would inject into the community college system.

They both have specifics they can offer, Romney just didn't discuss them much.

That said, Romney just came off as the stronger debater. He was more aggressive, he pushed his points better, and while he had his share of distortions, a live debate of this sort is honestly less about factual minutiae and more about presentation.


Either way, I doubt it'll matter. Obama commands enough of a lead in enough states, late enough in the game, that it's going to take something a lot more significant than a few 90 minute debates to fundamentally change anything.

[Pht]

process, on 03 October 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

I have already stated, those other things are not Constitutional rights, and certainly not relevant to the upcoming election. The evidence that this is being done to skew the election is obvious:

1. There is statistically zero impersonation fraud, and the biggest sources are committed by campaign and election officials and falsified registrations -- things that IDs would not prevent.
2. These photo ID laws are being coordinated across states with Republican legislatures to go into effect before the upcoming election.
3. Concurrently, these states are attempting to reduce early voting hours and erroneously purge voter registration lists.
4. Millions across the country do not have acceptable photo ID.
5. There does not seem to be any interest in actually helping people obtain free IDs.

Do I need to link to this again?

If there was a provision in these laws to actually help every eligible voter to get a free ID (so as not to run afoul of Amendment 24) by the time of the election, I would have absolutely no problem with it. Obviously people are better off with ID, but that's not an immediate concern.

There is no such thing as a right given to us citizens by the constitution. In fact, the some of the founders were (rightly, I think) leery that the first ten amendments would give people the false idea that the constitution created the rights of citizens.

That the the other things are supposedly not relevant to the upcoming election does nothing to change the fact that you are applying your standards in a hypocritical way. Your standard that asking for photo id incurs some sort of overwhelming burden on whatever "class" of people applies equally to the other situations mentioned.

It appears from what you have posted that you don't care of these people can get their power and water turned on, get their kids into government school, get a post office box, or drive a car ... but you do care if they can vote in this upcoming election.

You are quoting statistics; there is absolutely no reason that is accessible to the humanity unaided by revelation to ever state that any statistic is true and not false, because of the fact that ANY article of knowledge that one wishes to say is "true" MUST be produced by a process that is capable of producing truth. Inferences based upon human sensory observation fail the test of epistemology. The fallacies are demonstrable, and in fact, I even linked to many of them in an earlier post.

As for your other "obvious evidences" ... your conclusion does not follow from the premises you've given. You've done the equivalent of saying something like:

All dogs have four legs,

This animal has four legs,

Therefore, my neigbhor has rabbits with pancakes on their heads!

... the conclusion you're making is not required by your premises.

Quote

The prior has to do with people receiving benefits without paying into the system. The latter is people paying into the system, and distributing that money across all participants in the pool: this is risk distribution, and it is the fundamental principle behind insurance.

If you are uninsured, and can't pay for your Emergency room visit, who do you think is ultimately paying for that?
If you are paying for insurance, and do not require immediate medical care, who do you think is benefiting?

Each person who pays in helps everyone, because eventually, everyone will help you.

It would have helped greatly if you had have posted this in the first place.

Uninsured and can't pay for your visit, who pays? As long as there is no coercion involved, the people paying for uninshured people are doing so voluntarily based upon their own free choice between the options available to them.

Gettting the power of the government involved destroys the ability of people to make their own choices freely and puts the people under the power of government goons whos own interests most of the time will not align with the interests of the people who are put under their power.

This is also bad because even if it were possible to find some human somewhere that could always make the perfect decision for other people, if only they had the necessary information... well, there is no way to *get* the information necessary. In fact, even the people making their own free choices who LIVE in their situations and try to examine things deeply do not have all of the information.

Quote

By all means, correct me. How does your ideal healthcare system function?

Have the government prosecute against fraud, theft, and coercion and stop doing all the "extra" stuff. Reform the health-insurance industry back into being health insurance instead of paying out for mundane things; get as much of the "spending other people's money" out of the system as possible (because it drives prices up); reform the legal system, at least by institutiong "loser pays" and otherwise change it to curb out of control litigation against doctors that is driving the doctor's malpractice insurance through the ceilings.

Beyond that, implement the fair tax at the local, state, and national levels, so that people could actually have the wealth to do even more significant medical charity; it used to be accepted by doctors that they would have charity cases. It no longer is.

Quote

Because you repeat the same objections in the face of the evidence I have provided. Please, show me where there has been significant impersonation fraud. It's going to take more than one instance to demonstrate a systemic problem worth preventing potentially millions from voting. We've already been through the alien insurance comparison.

"Worth preventing potentially millions..." Where is it that I've posted this? ... Why is it you keep inventing these things I've never posted and attributing them to me?

Quote

Review the means and methods then. Dismissing all statistics because some are unreliable is silly. I can cite logical fallacies too! Looks like yours applies here too: http://en.wikipedia....rical_inference

You seem to have a pretty bad habit of assuming things you can't know from what's actually been posted.

Nothing I posted explicitly says nor means otherwise that I have "dismissed all statistics" on the basis that "some are unreliable."

I already stated it above, but I'll say it again, in order for any process to show that an article of knowledge is true that process must be able to produce truth.

Inductions based upon human sensory observation as a process can not reveal truth. Further, the unaided human mind (and I don't think the human mind is the physical brain) can not reveal truth.

Quote

If you'd like to propose a topic for discussion, I'd be happy to entertain.

What's there to propose? From the point of conception the unborn are human and therefore abortion is nothing more than a pretty linguistic way of saying "infanticide."

Quote

You know, I shouldn't even have to be arguing here.

That would only be true if you had not have made the positive argument that requring photo id to vote is wrong.

Edited by Pht, 06 October 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Pht]

Catamount, on 04 October 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

PhT is essentially just peddling classic anti-intellectualism,...

So, it's anti-intellectual to point out that the process someone is using to "find truth" is a fallacious (irrational, and thus, ACTUALLY anti-intellectual) system ...

Quote

...and clearly just doesn't understand statistics,..

If this is "clear," as you say it is, than it should be exceeedingly easy for you to actually demonstrate how it is that I somehow "don't understand statistics."

... unless you just expect everyone to believe you are right merely because you have made a post ...

Quote

I kind of wonder why you even bothered after that, since such statements show his fundamental thinking to be so wrong, that he's way beyond being corrected by mere evidence, operating on such fallacious fundamental premises.

Which "fallacious fundamental premises?" Or is the above quote an empty use of language with no thought behind it?

Quote

Why bother to discuss with someone who makes it a point to toss around every logical fallacy in the book, and treat evidence in such a way that he just declares anything inconvenient to him to be epistemologically flawed.

I tossed around "every logical fallacy in the book?" ... Or maybe you only mean "a significant percentage of them?" ... well, where? We have the ability to quote peoples posts, you know.

"Just declares anything inconvienent to him" ... You validly got this this from what I actually posted ... where? Or have you just assumed it because it is convenient for you?

Quote

The last paragraph in his response to me is rife with obvious fallacies, yet, take just the last sentence. If I had responded to his statement "It seems you wouldn't lock your car doors, simply because your car had never been broken into", establishing a false equivalency between that and voter ID laws, by pointing out that I could demonstrate a statistically significant problem with car theft, and could statistically show risk for a given person living in my area to justify such a non-burdensome action, he'd just respond with "Oh, well, statistics are inherently invalid, therefore that doesn't mean anything".

And what fallacy is this that you're alluding to? Or are you only presuming that because you think statistics is valid, it would be a fallacy to argue against their finding truth?

Quote

This is the same guy who showed me accusing him of a logical fallacy, claimed I didn't show said fallacy, and then entirely ignored the 50-60% of my post that was spent showing that fallacy, neither quoting nor addressing a single bit of it. My, how it must be easy to claim someone didn't post something when you can just pretend that part of a post doesn't exist

Where, exactly, do you think this happened?