"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
I disagree, Toadaly.

when the counterfeit drug industry tops 32 billion dollars, I am always hesitant about buying medications from foreign countries. When I got sick in Costa Rica while on vacation, I refused to buy any over the counter antibiotics. (no script needed there). Why? Because I had no way of knowing what the hell I was taking....

"In 2003, the World Health Organization cited estimates that the annual earnings from substandard and/or counterfeit drugs were over US$32 billion.[4]
The considerable difference between the cost of manufacturing counterfeit medication and price counterfeiters charge is a lucrative incentive. Fake antibiotics with a low concentration of the active ingredients can do damage world wide by stimulating the development of drug resistance in surviving bacteria. Courses of antibiotic treatment which are not completed can be dangerous or even life threatening. If a low-potency counterfeit drug is involved, completion of a course of treatment cannot be fully effective....."

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2014 11:10 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 10:44 AM)toadaly Wrote:  The vast vast vast majority of health care has nothing to do with a child born needing an anus transplant.


You missed my point entirely. Frank loves to provide extreme examples that are - in essence - antidotal evidence to his claims. I was serving him a dose of his own medicine...pun intended. :laugh at:

of course most children are not born with VACTERL association, although it occurs in 1 in 10,000 to 40,000 newborns. Pretty high occurrence considering comparative conditions such as O.I. (Osteogenesis Imperfectia), which affects every 1 out of 250,000. My point was that most people make decisions on healthcare not based on cost alone, but on a coalescence of other factors, including emotional comfort level of the doctors ability.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 11:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You missed my point entirely. Frank loves to provide extreme examples that are - in essence - antidotal anecdotal evidence to his claims. I was serving him a dose of his own medicine...pun intended. :laugh at:

[Image: GrammarNaziTiny.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-01-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 11:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 11:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You missed my point entirely. Frank loves to provide extreme examples that are - in essence - antidotal anecdotal evidence to his claims. I was serving him a dose of his own medicine...pun intended. :laugh at:

[Image: GrammarNaziTiny.jpg]

Thanks Chas. I blame my iPhone and its autocorrect function.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 11:11 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(27-01-2014 11:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  [Image: GrammarNaziTiny.jpg]

Thanks Chas. I blame my iPhone and its autocorrect function.

Yes, I could easily live without that creature featurette feather oh, fuck it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-01-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
Do you seriously think that writing a page full of jabs is going to distract from the fact that you STILL refuse to answer the basic question: Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will.

It's comical the lengths you've gone to to avoid answering that question. First, you continue to state that my “definitions [of force, initiate, and federal] were, and remain, woefully inadequate.” You conveniently forgot that the definitions I provided were not my own—they were copied from the dictionary. So, if you feel the definition is inadequate, take it up with Miriam-Webster, and stop saying they're “my” definitions. If you have better definitions, PLEASE STATE THEM. Next, the only way to demonstrate that the definition is inadequate is to state an example. I repeat: Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will. If you can't come up with an example where the definition of force is inadequate, stop saying it's inadequate. But here's where it's very comical. You just wrote:

(26-01-2014 10:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I do not agree with forcing people to do things against their will.

WTF? You just said the dictionary definition of 'force' is inadequate, and the concept of force is vague and subjective, so how on earth can you state that you're against using force while at the same time insisting that 'force' is not adequately defined??? If you don't know what force is, how can you be so sure you're not using it?!

And if you do reject using force to coerce people into doing things against their will, then what are we arguing about since we're in complete agreement?

Lastly, you keep misquoting my position, and I'm tired of repeating it: You wrote: “You, right now, in this very post, equivocate between your initial statement (All violence by ANYBODY) and your final statement (COMPLETELY at the federal level). Such statements are not equivalent.” I will repeat for the last time. As a libertarian, I'm against using force to deny people their right to free will. HOWEVER, I accept that (a) few people agree, and (b) there are ambiguous cases such as when a neighbor makes a lot of noise at night, THEREFORE, I accept the compromise that state/local governments should be able to initiate force PROVIDED they let people relocate to another jurisdiction if they find the force excessive. There is nothing complex about this position. So, your question is absurd: “Between you and any random other person there will be disagreement as to when force is justified. Do you deny this?” Assuming you're talking about initiating force at the federal level, then your question IS the same thing as asking “Is it true that you disagree on when it is justified to beat your wife?” NO, NO, for the 100th time, NO. I do not believe it is EVER justified to initiate force at the federal level because that means if the force proves to be excessive, there's no way for people to escape it. Your statement implies that I DO believe in using force at the federal level and only disagree with WHEN it should be used. But that's wrong. I've never advocated initiating force at the federal level (only blocking it, such as when the country is attacked, or if a state closed its borders to prevent people from leaving).

(26-01-2014 10:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The citation you never provided, incidentally, being the one wherein I advocate initiating force at the national level.

True, you refuse to ever state a position. All you do is throw out jabs. You attack me for suggesting that the federal should not initiate force, IMPLYING that you do advocate it, but you will not come right out and say it, whereas I have laid out my specific views on a wide array of policies. So, yet again:

Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will.

(26-01-2014 10:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Are libertarians a hive mind? Apparently. Funny, that. Everyone who agrees with you shares one hive mind, and everyone who disagrees shares another.

But this IS a binary, black & white, yes/no issue. For a given individual, find some national issue that he strongly advocates. Maybe he is a very strong opponent of drugs. Now ask him if the federal government should pass anti-drug laws. If he says 'no', keep going down the list of issues where the federal government can intervene for the benefit of society, like eminent domain, etc.

If somebody says no to all issues and states 'No matter how much it benefits me to have the federal government intervene and initiate force, and no matter how badly I want to see it happen, I reject using force to deny people their free will...' then that person does reject the use of force. But in my experience, this is a very small minority. Most people have some issue where the federal government to initiate force, so it's just a subjective call of when it's justified.

You imply this when you ask questions like: “Between you and any random other person there will be disagreement as to when force is justified. Do you deny this?” But I keep answering 'no', and keep asking you to come up with one example where you think I would say the use of justified at the national level. You can't come up with a single example.

Bottom line is that if you're so concerned that I'm making false assumptions about your positions, then state your position: Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will. It's pathetic that you sit on the sideline and insist that other's opinions are retarded, but refuse to state your own and subject it to critique. You can keep claiming “I repeatedly asked you questions and answered yours”, but the fact is I keep asking that question over and over and you refuse to answer it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 12:16 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  The system in the U.S. was created to protect the minority from the majority. That is why there are checks and balances. There can be libertarian friendly states - there is no federal law that prevents that.

Really? So, if, for example the people of Maine decide they want to decriminalize ALL drugs, decriminalize the use of alternative currencies, decriminalize the refusal to report all your economic activity to the federal government, etc., etc., you're seriously saying there are no federal laws that prevent that? The people of Maine are free to do as they wish?

(27-01-2014 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  Now you are just dreaming, spouting ideological cant. Have you ever actually witnessed local government? The results are often far more unfair and even repressive than at the federal level. Why? Because there are fewer effective checks and balances.

Yes, I have, and in my experience it's the opposite. At the LOCAL level there are more checks and balances, because the distance between the politician and voter is much less. If the mayor of a town with a population of 1,000 people starts dolling out gratuitous contracts to a company his wife owns, the people are much more likely to catch it, since they can just walk in and audit. At the Federal level, this stuff happens all the time with no checks and balances at all. What about the NSA? Could a local government have ever done that? So, please, let's list all the most egregious actions by governments: such as genocide, eugenics, the holocaust, the killing fields, the Armenian massacre, North Korea's executions, the Gulags, McCarthyism, etc., etc. How many of those were carried out by local governments? How many by national governments? How many great tragedies can you come up with that have ever been done by local governments? Seriously, imo, it doesn't and can't ever happen at the local level because if a local government goes crazy, the people will leave. It's only when the federal government does it, so the people are trapped within a border and escape is impossible, that you get such severe repression. If you disagree, name one specific example. I've stated dozens of examples of national governments gone awry, if you can't come up with even one example at the local level, then please concede the point.

(27-01-2014 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  Leaving is simply not a practical answer. You seem to have little understanding of most people's economic limitations and emotional needs.

It's the opposite, actually. I _DO_ appreciate the emotional needs. For example, if you're a gay kid, born at a time when 95% of the population felt you should be given electro-shock therapy until you became straight, _I_ am the one saying that, when he becomes a legal adult, he should be able to move out and find a community that accepts him as he is, and you're the one saying resistance is futile, he needs to endure the painful treatment because the majority should be able to pass this law at the national level. As far as the economic limitation of moving, look, at some point all of us move out from home. We have to go through the expense of renting our own place, buying our own furniture, starting our own life. To start out in another state instead of your own merely involves the one time investment of $200 or so in gas. When people move away from home and choose to start a life in their local community, it is not because it's economically impossible for them to hitch a ride to a neighboring state and start out, it's simply because they like what their community has to offer. The US a very mobile society. Even at the lowest economic levels people move from state to state all the time. So your claim that the majority of "most people" could never relocate to another state is absurd, imo, and it's especially hypocritical since you relocated from another country! Back in the 19th century millions of poor, "huddled masses" left their homelands, giving up any chance of direct communication with their families, enduring month-long trips in cramped boats, to come to a new country and learn a new language and a new culture. So to suggest that today, in the 21st century, it's not possible for Americans to move from one state to another is, imo, a weak excuse.

(27-01-2014 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't agree that the U.S. system leads inevitably to a two-party system.

This was explained in another thread linking to the video below. What about it don't you agree with?

Lastly, there's one big question I keep asking, and you keep avoiding. I'm in favor of decision-making being as local as possible. There's no arbitrary line in the sand, I'd rather take it all the way to the individual level. You, however, argue that bigger is better, and there are gains to be had from concentrating and centralizing power. So, why stop at the federal level? Why not go further, and have one world government, or at least one for the Americas? And why split legislative between a house and a senate? Let's merge them. And we don't need so many Congressman, have just a few. Heck, go all the way and have one person who is given all the executive, judicial and legislative power for the whole world! If, as you say, concentrating and centralizing power is a better system, leads to more checks and balances, less abuse, and there's no downside, why draw an arbitrary line in the sand and stop at the current federal level? If you really believed that, you'd take it all the way. I think, deep down, you realize concentrating and centralizing power is bad, and that's why you're not advocating we do any more of it. But, you favor preserving the status quo and don't want to make radical changes, so it's purely arbitrary that you think that where the lines are currently drawn is actually the best place to draw them. Which is actually a characteristic of conservatism.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  It's comical the lengths you've gone to to avoid answering that question. First, you continue to state that my “definitions [of force, initiate, and federal] were, and remain, woefully inadequate.” You conveniently forgot that the definitions I provided were not my own—they were copied from the dictionary. So, if you feel the definition is inadequate, take it up with Miriam-Webster, and stop saying they're “my” definitions. If you have better definitions, PLEASE STATE THEM.

Miriam-Webster's also defines such concepts as 'love', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'reality', and 'God'.

And yet somehow philosophy still exists.

Shit, son. Are you gonna tell 'em to knock off that lark, or shall I? I mean, what are they wasting all that time and money on? The dictionary says! What more could they want?

I guess there's just no pleasing some people.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Next, the only way to demonstrate that the definition is inadequate is to state an example. I repeat: Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will. If you can't come up with an example where the definition of force is inadequate, stop saying it's inadequate.

Do you even listen to yourself? That is not coherent.

I mentioned several possibilities. Even you recognize that one's free will does not extend to unconsensually harming others. Therefore some degree of personal integrity is in fact the overriding concern. Therefore the exact boundaries of said integrity (ie person, property, interaction, environment, etc) are open to discussion.

That is not a discussion you appear to be willing to have.

The question remains idiotic. I would literally be reduced to mentioning one thing at a time to see what you thought. I don't particularly think that's worth my time.

You - against all reason - have obsessively fixated on one meaningless question, to such a degree that you are apparently now unable to have any other interaction with me. It's very odd.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But here's where it's very comical. You just wrote:

(26-01-2014 10:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I do not agree with forcing people to do things against their will.

WTF? You just said the dictionary definition of 'force' is inadequate, and the concept of force is vague and subjective, so how on earth can you state that you're against using force while at the same time insisting that 'force' is not adequately defined??? If you don't know what force is, how can you be so sure you're not using it?!

My use of such words is, implicitly, according to my understanding of their meanings.

This is how language works, frankksj.

The sane and polite thing to do is then to ask, "what do you mean by [x]", where [x] is perceived to be inadequately defined.

If you'll recall, this is how I originally framed my questions to you.

But once you're prepped for an express ride on the trollercoaster, there's really no dissuading you.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And if you do reject using force to coerce people into doing things against their will, then what are we arguing about since we're in complete agreement?

Remember that time I literally said that exact thing? With the addendum that most people are not the one-dimensional wonders that you are? And therefore yes, while agreement in principle is certainly possible, agreement on practical reality is more elusive?

Because restrictions on a complete free exercise of individual will are the very definition of society?

You are ranting, and I am trying to dispel your merry cavalcade of straw men. I wouldn't really call that "arguing".

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Lastly, you keep misquoting my position, and I'm tired of repeating it: You wrote: “You, right now, in this very post, equivocate between your initial statement (All violence by ANYBODY) and your final statement (COMPLETELY at the federal level). Such statements are not equivalent.”

They aren't. "NEVER X" and "NEVER X (with exceptions)" are not the same thing.

It is incredibly dishonest to state the former, and when questioned, defend the latter, and then re-assert the former... Not that that stops you, of course.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I will repeat for the last time. As a libertarian, I'm against using force to deny people their right to free will.

Unless, necessarily, one person's free will is in direct contradiction to another's.

That right there is a pretty big additional consideration. So there's that.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  HOWEVER, I accept that (a) few people agree, and (b) there are ambiguous cases such as when a neighbor makes a lot of noise at night, THEREFORE, I accept the compromise that state/local governments should be able to initiate force PROVIDED they let people relocate to another jurisdiction if they find the force excessive. There is nothing complex about this position.

No. It is, of course, nowhere near sufficient so far as, say, an actual code of laws would be concerned.

Notwithstanding, for perhaps the thousandth time, that the location and nature of jurisdictional borders are social constructs.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So, your question is absurd: “Between you and any random other person there will be disagreement as to when force is justified. Do you deny this?” Assuming you're talking about initiating force at the federal level, then your question IS the same thing as asking “Is it true that you disagree on when it is justified to beat your wife?” NO, NO, for the 100th time, NO. I do not believe it is EVER justified to initiate force at the federal level because that means if the force proves to be excessive, there's no way for people to escape it. Your statement implies that I DO believe in using force at the federal level and only disagree with WHEN it should be used. But that's wrong. I've never advocated initiating force at the federal level (only blocking it, such as when the country is attacked, or if a state closed its borders to prevent people from leaving).

By your (sorry - "the dictionary's") definition of force it is a trivial exercise to construct scenarios in which a violation of free will does not constitute initiating force, and yet stopping or preventing such actions does.

These you necessarily accept implicitly, provided you do in fact accept such concepts as 'rule of law'. Do you?

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  True, you refuse to ever state a position.

So... are you now, at long last, after many trials and tribulations, trying to sneak in an acknowledgement that no, I did not say the words you put in my mouth?

Feels good to shed that baggage, no?

(notwithstanding that I have made numerous statements as to my own beliefs, of course...)

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  All you do is throw out jabs. You attack me...

I did not attack you until your pattern of dishonest misrepresentation became evident.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  ... for suggesting that the federal should not initiate force, IMPLYING that you do advocate it, but you will not come right out and say it, whereas I have laid out my specific views on a wide array of policies.

Not particularly. You presented some scenarios, both real and hypothetical, as did I.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So, yet again:

Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will.

Remember how I think the question is stupid?

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But this IS a binary, black & white, yes/no issue.

Are you actually incapable of recognizing the existence of nuance? Because that would actually explain a lot...

In considering an act human beings might consider both "what good does this do?" and "what bad does this do?". It is then possible to decide what overall value might be given. How that is decided is subjective by definition and highly variable to boot.

This is the basis of morality and ethics for most human beings. I have tried several times to explain this to you. You don't seem to get it.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  For a given individual, find some national issue that he strongly advocates. Maybe he is a very strong opponent of drugs. Now ask him if the federal government should pass anti-drug laws. If he says 'no', keep going down the list of issues where the federal government can intervene for the benefit of society, like eminent domain, etc.

If somebody says no to all issues and states 'No matter how much it benefits me to have the federal government intervene and initiate force, and no matter how badly I want to see it happen, I reject using force to deny people their free will...' then that person does reject the use of force. But in my experience, this is a very small minority. Most people have some issue where the federal government to initiate force, so it's just a subjective call of when it's justified.

Literally every opinion is subjective.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You imply this when you ask questions like: “Between you and any random other person there will be disagreement as to when force is justified. Do you deny this?”

Nope.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But I keep answering 'no', and keep asking you to come up with one example where you think I would say the use of justified at the national level. You can't come up with a single example.

The question is stupid.

According to your definitions you never would; that is a trivial statement.

I never said your definitions were inconsistent, which is what you allege; I said they were inadequate.

This is a very simple distinction. Do you understand?

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Bottom line is that if you're so concerned that I'm making false assumptions about your positions...

You have, innumerable times.

(27-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  ... then state your position: Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will. It's pathetic that you sit on the sideline and insist that other's opinions are retarded, but refuse to state your own and subject it to critique. You can keep claiming “I repeatedly asked you questions and answered yours”, but the fact is I keep asking that question over and over and you refuse to answer it.

You appear to have utterly missed the point of my box analogy.

The question is stupid and answering it would be tedious.

Asking you about the question is apparently a dead-end ride on the trollercoaster.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A fun little thought experiment for Frank. CJ - Tune in and watch Frank hang himself with his own leash.

Oh, this should be fun. Wanna bet this will be followed by a strawman?

(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Under Frank's government, there are no patents on this drug. So any company can take the information technology from me at gunpoint

ROFL. There you go. I have said a million times that libertarians believe the role of government is to BLOCK the initiation of force, to PREVENT anyone and everyone from forcing anybody to do anything at gunpoint. An effective strawman is a subtle variation on your opponent's position. But when you attribute the EXACT OPPOSITE position, that's the lamest and most useless strawman imaginable. Hello, Cathy, YOU are on the side of forcing people to do things at gunpoint. I'm on the opposite side.

Similarly, everything else in your post similarly shows that every single thing I've said went over your head completely. You're not countering my points, you're missing them entirely.

(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And because there is no FDA, there is absolutely no way to be certain that the drug you are purchasing elsewhere for cheaper, is in fact the same drug.

There's a case in point. Every libertarian system includes enforcing voluntary contracts and prosecuting fraud. If a drug company sells some substitute drug, but fraudulently labels the product as the real drug, so that the consumer enters into a voluntary agreement to pay money in exchange for the drug, the drug company has violated the voluntary contract and committed fraud.

(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  there is no government interference stopping me from joining forces with the other drug companies to fix the price.... companies when left to their own devices, do fix prices....

And how do they generally do that? Oh, yeah. Government regulation. Milton Friedman regularly challenged people to find monopolies among the thousands that have existed that did NOT come through government privilege. I've seen only one, DeBeers. The other 99% all got their monopoly by colluding with the government. So, your solution to the problem is, well, more of the problem.

When companies collude to keep prices and profits artificially high, it is nearly always temporary because some scrappy new guy is always willing to offer the same product at a better price and get a piece of that pie. The ONLY way to maintain the artificially high prices is to block new entrants from entering. I have a strong suspicion that the collusion in the ADM case you referenced ultimately involved using the government to block new entrants, through patents or some other means. Otherwise, if they were making billions in profit on lysine, new companies would have started making lysine and the price fixing would have quickly been broken up.


(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I should have the free will to set the prices that I deem fit. It was my hard work, startup money, etc., that led to the discovery of the drug. No one should be able to take that information away from me by gunpoint. Further, it is my competitors right to also set a price that they deem fit, which may or may not be to lower the price due to the inelasticity of the demand. I mean, this is what you were saying, wasn't it?

WTF? Can you make up your mind? In the same post you wrote: “Under Frank's government... any company can take the information technology from me at gunpoint” and then followed it up with “No one should be able to take that information away from me by gunpoint.... I mean, this is what you were saying, wasn't it?” Hello, Cathy, you've ascribed opposite positions to me WITHIN THE SAME POST!?

(27-01-2014 10:09 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are going to go for the highest rated, best education, best facilities, and highest experienced surgeon even if it means signing away all claims to your life.

AFAIK, most people just go with the doctor that their HMO picks for them. I don't know that many who are willing or able to go out of network to get the best doctor in the world. The bottom line is if you don't like Mexico, fine don't go there. I'm not forcing you. You are the one defending a system that forces me to participate in it against my will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2014, 12:45 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Q: Name one federal policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to force people to do things against their will.

(27-01-2014 12:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  while agreement in principle is certainly possible, agreement on practical reality is more elusive?

YES, so state one practical, real world example.

(27-01-2014 12:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The question is stupid and answering it would be tedious.

It is NOT stupid nor tedious to state WHAT specifically you disagree with me on. All it takes is one sentence, like "I feel there should be federal drug laws". Done. In one sentence we know what we're debating. But you go on and on and I still have no idea what it is you disagree with me on. THAT is stupid and tedious.

(27-01-2014 12:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Asking you about the question is apparently a dead-end ride on the trollercoaster.

Agreed, this is a dead-end ride and I'm getting off. I've asked the question a hundred times. You find it so uncomfortable to answer that all you can do is instead ask me more stupid, ludicrous questions, like "well is it force if someone points a laser gun to your head, since photons don't have matter, and therefore it's not physical force?" You seem to be able to come up with an endless array of stupid questions for my question, to stall having to answer the question. I'm done with this. We're going in circles. If there was ever any chance that you'd answer the question you'd have done it months ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: