We support the separation of church and state, but do not endorse candidates or parties.The DNC Convention. Discuss
We support the separation of church and state, but do not endorse candidates or parties.The DNC Convention. Discuss
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
AtomicTestes
Your beef is with reality. It just pisses you off that the world doesn’t conform to your libertarian ideology. Sorry about that. Reality bites!
Your envy isn’t even thinly veiled.
Did you mean to say “is no functional difference”. I will assume that’s what you mean otherwise your former rants make even less sense.
Socialized medicine refers to systems in which the government runs the hospitals and where doctors and staff are government employees.
Socialized medical insurance refers to a system where the hospitals are privately run and the doctors are either self employed or are employees of the hospital.
If you do not see the vast difference in these two systems I can only say that I am astonished.
Huh? What is wrong with you?
And then you post this gem:
From none other than the Cato Institute – A Libertarian “think tank”. Sorry, but you will have to do better than getting your economic “facts” from partisan political hacks.
Trying doing a little reading outside the world of political hackery. Read the McKinsey Report and then get back to me. If you would like the highlights of that report I will be happy to provide them.
The sneaky duck is back. Either concept is functionally equivalent because:
A) The government sets all the rules for how much is paid for treatments.
B) The revenue that hospitals receive will be nearly all coming from tax dollars since a vast majority of Americans will not be able to afford their own insurance AND the taxes that it will cost to run this program.
C) Obama is not even bright enough to recognize that his plan would not even work unless it is compulsory (something that was part of Clinton’s plan) or he is a liar and would make it compulsory after he is elected.
D) There is no compelling evidence that our government will run this system any better than it is currently run and maintain the same quality of service and care. Looking at the problems with other socialized health care services in other countries and the continuing ineptitude of our own government I am inclined to believe what we will get will be worse.
The fact is that no matter which paradigm is used (socialized “insurance” or taking over the whole damned thing) every tax payer will end up footing the bill. The effect is the same, the government sets all the costs (removing the freedom from the market) and the taxpayers pay for it.
Here is a huge question that you should ask yoursef. You are only thinking about this from the perspective of Democrats being in power. How much good will a program like this do when the Republicans are? Do you think it will be magically exempt from being used in political power plays? Do you think that will really be the best thing for the country?
Half of Americans do not want this system. If you persist and shove it down unwilling throats you will be witness to the ages-old proverb: If you play with fire you’ll be burned.
Ad hominem attack. You don’t like the message so you attack the people saying it. Disprove them with some evidence, if you are able.
Atomic
Man you really don’t understand what an adhominem attack is do you? Do you want me and others to start posting links to obvious political hackery in support of socializaed insurance and ask that you debunk all of it.
Lets cut past your nonsensical obfuscation of the issue and ask you a simple question. What do we do with the medically uninsured that arrive on the doorsteps of the ER?
Atomic
No I’m not. Have fun setting up the straw men.
Are you retarded? Really man how old are you? Ever here of a little something called MEDICARE. Poiticians can use it as a football all they want but it remains – despite even the BushCo years – intact. And hey thanks for giving everyone another reason for not voting rethuglican! Too funny.
Your right a guess I just wasn’t thinking. Now that you put it that way. God Bless America. I’m on board.
The rest of the world wants it but you would like us to believe that the US doesn’t.
I am astonished by your lack of understanding of the difference between socialized medicine and socialized medical insurance. You apparently see no difference between the government controlling one industry as opposed to two. Should I do the math for you 2-1=? Chew that one over for a while.
Oh and Einstein – Medicare is extremely popular.
Wwat a dolt!
Awful example because you already won that battle. The answer is simple: They get treatment. No hospital can refuse to treat a patient regardless of ability to pay. I am starting to doubt that you are even a doctor. Are you a chiropractor?
I am astonished at your incapacity to understand that both ideas cost the taxpayers the same and essentially put the government in control of the whole show. I starting to think that this really doesn’t escape you, but that you’re being intellectually dishonest.
Argumentum ad populum.
You are just brimming with fallacious arguments lately. Perhaps I’ll start referring to you as WhatPhreedm. Both of you really are shaping up to be opposite sides of the same coin. Neither of you can compose an argument that stands on its own merit. Both of you turn to ad hominems and all kinds of other logical fallacies when you aren’t hearing the words you would like to. Neither of you support your claims, but are equally confident that you are correct.
Atomic
So your blathering about forcing “everyone to pay into everyone else’s medical costs” is mute then isn’t it. The only remaining question, for most of us, is how best to deal with the high costs of taking care of those that have no insurance because the cost gets passed on to all of us. So how do we do that? Let’s see if you have done your homework or you just come back at me with more CAto Institute talking points.
Oh and BTW if you are going to bring up logic fallacies then you should learn what the really are. Pointing at that Cato is a biased source isn’t an ad hominem fallacy. Here’s the syllogism for the slow witted:
The Cato Institute is a biased source.
One should not trust a biased source.
One should not trust The Cato Institute.
Got it?
Whats more you really should learn what these “logical fallacies” that you keep harping on actually are. They are not the axioms of classical logic which you seem to be mistaking them for.
Atomic
I’ll be out of town until Tuesday so you have got plenty of time to think. I suggest you use it. For your own good.
Pointing at that Cato is a biased source -> Pointing out that Cato is a biased source
Nothing but silence from Atomic. How telling.
I checked a few times and it had appeared this was a dead topic.
Apparently you want to get the last word and don’t mind creating an echo chamber as long as you can have your way.
To spell this out for you, it is an ad hominem to insist there is bias and then refuse to prove that any point being made is incorrect.
Ad hominem means “argument against the man” which is exactly what you are doing. Rather than disprove the point I, or they, are making you would rather attack us. In my case, it is more direct, you insult and degrade me with your typical derisive sneers. In their case, you call foul and claim bias (and don’t prove it).
You have no principles. Either prove that the statement is false, or don’t. But don’t resort to a strategy of ad hominem attacks and expect that any intelligent person is not going to see right through your “argument.”
P.S. The CATO Institute is a libertarian think tank. There is a difference between the meanings of libertarian and Libertarian. As for being able to tell which is which, I’ll leave that exercise to you.
The word is “moot.” I guess that’s what your education amounted to.
You (supposedly) possess college education but you use middle school vocabulary and an have an elementary school grasp of debate. Worse, when you are losing arguments you respond with elementary school insults.
As for your comment,
We don’t. We repeal all of the laws that are preventing competition for medical insurance. If the government did not create this problem to begin with by setting up tax benefits for group insurace plans (forever tying insurance to employment and creating all kinds of problems – like gaps in coverage when you are unemployed) we would not have this mess to begin with.
Insurance would be a lot more affordable if insurance companies had to compete for customers, rather than compete for corporate accounts. Why do you support a law that takes away your ability to individually choose your own insurance provider?
Nuclear Nads,
I said in my post that I was going to get trashed. To accuse me basically of presenting myself as a messiah, since I did no such thing, would basically be an admission that that you had no logical or relevent response to my line of reason. I have downloaded your impotent response, cropped it, and posted it on my wall of shame. Now your high school buddies can take this response and shove in cavities already stretched by each others strap ons.
NeoWolfe
Huh? Where did I make a claim that you were presenting yourself as a messiah?
I think I’m going to cry – I have a fan! Maybe I’ll start an emo diary and write some shitty poetry about how liberals hate me. Would you post that on your wall too?
I’m not really sure if you meant “impotent” or “impudent.”
I can’t really think up a retort for this that doesn’t sound homophobic, and homophobia isn’t counted among my flaws (thankfully).
All I am left with is that I can comment on your style. That’s some vivid imagery, though a little low-brow for humor (I imagine that’s where you were headed – I am trying to be optimistic), don’t you think?
What does it have to do with atheism or any of my points?
Atomic
Take a class in logic.
My syllogism was valid. You just don’t like the premise that Cato is bias. Do you see now why your beloved fallacies are nothing more than arbitrary rules for argumentation? Are you claiming that your rules of argumentation are self evident. Nothing is self evident outside of the minds of religious fanatics, Or are yopu claiming that these rules of yours derive logically (classical logic) from self evident premised. There are none. You are a mental midget. Want more proof. Here ya go.
All major studies show that if insurance companies were free to reject whoever they wanted to (your repeal would allow this) then at least 15 percent of Americans could not afford insurance and whats more that 15 percent would be the same fifteen percent that presently accounts for the majority of medical expenditures. This would result in a larger percentage of americans getting their care through the ER.
Really man YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
See my more current post about mental midgets that criticize spelling and grammar on blogs.
It was fun playing!
It is clear that your brain is not cut out for this logic thingy.
Atomic
I thought this would be fun to address.
Is that one of them their ad d homoneme attacks you bean talk’n on.
Bachelor degrees in Math and Chem, M.D. and a Ph.D. in physics. Thank you very much.
I was a street fight’n kid that grew up in a neighborhood where one considered themselves lucky to have survived to age 21. So I didn’t have much interest in school. That all changed at age twenty one – longer story. After deciding that my life must change I went back to school where I very quickly caught up and then overtook all others. The rest is history.
So you’re right. The roughness around the edges from my unconventional youth still shows a bit. But hey despite my rough edges I have smoothly disassembled your nonsensical understanding of the US health care imperative.
Chalk up another for the highly educated street fighters.
Nuclear Nads,
I apologize for equating you with people who ream each other with strap ons. They must be extremely insulted. I don’t blame them. If I had a strap on I wouldn’t want to be connected to you either. My most sincere apology.
And you’re correct, it has nothing to do with free thinkers, nor has most of the posts you have made so far. Patiently we wait for you to be relevent.
NeoWolfe
And we wait … and wait …