[Turambar]

I agree, a public option to help keep the insurance industry honest would be preferable.  More capitalist too, inspiring change through competition rather than through invasive regulation and punishment.

[NGTM-1R]

seriously, we're requiring proof through direct text that insurance is now mandated?  that is just reaching.  if you don't know that as fact by now, you are in no position qualified to be discussing the health care bill at all.

Now originally I was simply commenting on the fact that, instead of giving his argument greater legitimacy and impact by directly quoting, he went for a secondary source that does none of these things. But you started this.

Let us catalogue the logical fail.

Bill is Primary Source.

You are stating Primary Source has no relevance when you are called on to directly quote Primary Source.

You are stating that knowledge of Primary Source is not required to be an authority on Primary Source.

This means you stating that Primary Source is not relevant to discussing Primary Source, its effects, meaning, or anything about it.

This level of laziness, logical incompetence, or raw malice towards my posistion that you'd stoop this low is unconscienceable.

[Liberator]

So basically you are asking him to read a 1206 page document, with no index, to find the particular part he needed.  You can't have an argument, excuse me, a discussion in anything approaching even real(forum) time like that.  It would have taken weeks.

[NGTM-1R]

So basically you are asking him to read a 1206 page document, with no index, to find the particular part he needed.  You can't have an argument, excuse me, a discussion in anything approaching even real(forum) time like that.  It would have taken weeks.

Oh come now. Surely one of his many secondary sources bothered to quote it directly? Wikipedia? Simple search function?

Or are you telling me everything he's cited is tertiary source?

This is also irrevelant to the point that if he's not actually read the thing that's worrying.

[Solatar]

When do certain things enter common knowledge. . .

I say the Constitution gives me a right to free speech - barring any dispute over what that MEANS - I've never been asked to cite my source for that.

One of the core tenants of this bill is that it requires people to purchase insurance - through their own means or through tax subsidies.  I heard it on CNN or something. . .

That "big government.com" source that has been posted; while having a huge potential for bias, does cite sources.  I feel like a government report counts as a reliable source.

By a show of hands; who's sat down and read this entire bill, word for word (I don't mean skimming)?  


For those who would like to really know about what they're defending/attacking, instead of relying on dubious secondary sources, have fun:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Senate_health_care_bill.pdf  It's only 2409 pages.

For those who want some specifics, but haven't read the entire bill, here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

EDIT: It also appears that some of the stuff being done it actually the bill modifying the Internal Revenue Code.

See page 8:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/House_reconciliation_package_031610.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Liberator]

{grammar fascist}

"irrelevant" is not a word.  I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.

{/grammar fascist}

[NGTM-1R]

I say the Constitution gives me a right to free speech - barring any dispute over what that MEANS - I've never been asked to cite my source for that.

You know as well as I that's not remotely comparable. They don't teach about the health care bill in school. (And probably shouldn't for about a decade until the impact's really been sorted out, but the textbook companies are busily writing stuff up write now I'm sure because they're evil bastards.)

One of the core tenants of this bill is that it requires people to purchase insurance - through their own means or through tax subsidies.  I heard it on CNN or something. . .

Again, I point out my original comment was about the argument not being made as well as it could have been.

Then somebody has to come along and jump off the slippery slope about it not being at all necessary to know what you're talking about.

By a show of hands; who's sat down and read this entire bill, word for word (I don't mean skimming)?  

And by attaching a no-skimming sign to it you simply betray your bias since I never made a suggestion like that (and would argue that you should skim most stuff that comes out of Congress if you read it, for the benefit of your own sanity).

"irrelevant" is not a word.  I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.

My dictonary and at least one noted linguist (Richard Lederer) would disagree.

Also, nice failure to engage with the argument.

[iamzack]

{grammar fascist}

"irrelevant" is not a word.  I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.

{/grammar fascist}

maybe you mean irregardless.

[Nuclear1]

Which is funny, given that this side conversation is irrelevant to the current discussion.

[Liberator]

Also, nice failure to engage with the argument.

I didn't engage on the argument, because this argument is actually going on in another thread, this thread was about the Government overreaching a different power unrelated to health care.

[General Battuta]

{grammar fascist}

"irrelevant" is not a word.  I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.

{/grammar fascist}

Irrelevant is a word.

You're thinking of irregardless.

[Liberator]

I think you are right.

[General Battuta]

Sorry to be a crazy Nazi about it.

By the way Liberator, in spite of all our past disagreements I must say you've been (in my eyes) a pleasure to have around on the forums lately. It's good to see you outside of GenDisc and even in GD things seem more civil.

[iamzack]

Don't jinx it, man.

[Klaustrophobia]

seriously, we're requiring proof through direct text that insurance is now mandated?  that is just reaching.  if you don't know that as fact by now, you are in no position qualified to be discussing the health care bill at all.

Now originally I was simply commenting on the fact that, instead of giving his argument greater legitimacy and impact by directly quoting, he went for a secondary source that does none of these things. But you started this.

Let us catalogue the logical fail.

Bill is Primary Source.

You are stating Primary Source has no relevance when you are called on to directly quote Primary Source.

You are stating that knowledge of Primary Source is not required to be an authority on Primary Source.

This means you stating that Primary Source is not relevant to discussing Primary Source, its effects, meaning, or anything about it.

This level of laziness, logical incompetence, or raw malice towards my posistion that you'd stoop this low is unconscienceable.

i stated absolutely NONE of that.  since you are such a fan of citing, maybe you can cite where in my post said fallacies appear.

do you EVER actually argue a point, or just try to tear down everyone else's?

[Flaser]

You Americans are CRAZY.

In most of the world we have public health care. - It applies to everyone.
You also have public health care. - It doesn't apply to everyone.

Obama would like to mandate that it *does*.

To do that funds have to come from somewhere. There are various ways how this is financed in the world. He could have skimmed it off from taxes and raise/shift taxes. Instead a more complex scheme was drawn up where the Average Joe can decide how he'll finance his own health-care.

You think that mandating that you should *finance* your own health-care is undemocratic. Tell me, if he doesn't pay for - and YOU WON'T CAUSE it's *HIS* HEALTH-CARE (thank you very much, you've made at least that clear)  - who will?

Right now all that can be extracted from the clutches of tax system is the bare minimum to ensure that people don't die when care is available. However the funny thing is: it's NOT available! Unless you're eligible for medicare/fedicare your expenses will ruin you and for all intents and purposes you'll become an indentured servant.

Extending this bare minimum of safety to everyone doesn't seem like such a "facist" thing to me.

This is the nation where 10% of the population own 60% of all the wealth. With a finer brush the same arguement can be made that actually 2% owns 30-40%.

Who has anything to loose in this deal? All those who are uninsured right now and are a single ailment or accident away from total financial ruin? All of you who're already in terror because it's your employer who owns your insurance not you?

...all the super rich who might not get that 4th yacht or 2nd palatial mansion in case the bill goes through?

This is the most "Christian" nation on Earth.
You sicken me.

[Nuclear1]

That's what I've been trying to say...but the rich are already out there spreading misinformation among the masses with fears of "communism" and "government takeover" just so they can make it seem like people actually have a grassroots opposition to the bill.

[Liberator]

What part of "unsustainable" is hard to understand? 

The much touted Social Security system is going to be bankrupt in less than 2 decades.  Hawaii can't afford the public health care system they designed for themselves. NONE of this stuff is free, someone has to pay for it.  I guess you guys like getting 3/4 or more of your pay taken from you to pay for stuff you'll never see or benefit from, much your kids or grand kids?

This isn't about health care.  It never was.  It's about control.  It's about setting the stage so that they can control every aspect of your life, because they think they know better than you how to live it.

[The E]

Liberator: Here in Germany, we've had public health care in one form or another for more than a hundred years now. While there is a growing problem due to demographic change, and the system has to change, noone in their right mind is suggesting abandoning it for the completely idiotic largely private system you Americans use.

Also, I don't know whose control is more dangerous. That of a right-wing, religiously motivated coalition of morons who think that experts are people who need to be stood up against, or those of the guys who are in power now.

As far as I can tell, the American right wing, with its ongoing love affair with big money, strange religions and a weirdly skewed way of interpreting things like Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other of those values you pray too in the morning is more dangerous than the alternative.

Seriously, what the **** is so bad about a system that guarantees that your life is not ended by some accident or some random stroke of bad luck regarding genetics?

[Nuclear1]

What part of "unsustainable" is hard to understand? 

The much touted Social Security system is going to be bankrupt in less than 2 decades.  Hawaii can't afford the public health care system they designed for themselves. NONE of this stuff is free, someone has to pay for it.  I guess you guys like getting 3/4 or more of your pay taken from you to pay for stuff you'll never see or benefit from, much your kids or grand kids?

This isn't about health care.  It never was.  It's about control.  It's about setting the stage so that they can control every aspect of your life, because they think they know better than you how to live it.

First, I'd like cited sources about Hawaii's healthcare system being unsustainable.  They've got such a limited population due to geographic isolation and the cost of relocation that there isn't going to be a sudden growth or decline anytime soon, and businesses that don't like paying for an employee's healthcare have a really, really difficult time relocating back to the lower 48.

Second, for the 59453739th time, your pay isn't being taxed. Unless you somehow make $250K+ a year, then you're not going to see a dime come out of your paycheck for this.  No, this stuff isn't free--that's why the absolute most rich are going to be paying for it.  You only think you're going to pay for it because you've been lied to.

And third, yes, it is about health care.  It's about the 44 million who are uninsured and a runaway corrupt cartel of private insurance companies.  It's about people essentially being their right to life is a luxury, not a basic human right.  I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself on this.