www.ditl.org

DSG2k wrote:
"Bzzt, wrong as usual your either lying or can't be bothered to check your facts."

Why be a dick when you're wrong? It just makes you look stupid.

The court decision was from Quebec. The .pdf referencing it was from a national medical association. Per the CBC in Dec. 2006, "The incidence of health care providers practicing outside a provincial system is on the rise. Provinces like Quebec have seen significant growth in private, for-profit clinics. These clinics allow those who are willing to pay for services to obtain them without the usual wait times, which is in direct violation of the Canada Health Act." See also the increasing growth as of August '07.

I don't claim to be an expert on Canadian healthcare, but all sources point to a private + public system in Quebec. Many other provinces have laws similar to the ones which applied in Quebec, overturning the ban on strictly-private practices. That's not even counting the private supplements to public stuff all across Canada.

And there was such a public outcry over the experiment that the dual tier public/private system in Quebec never got off the ground.

Who's dodging? You're assuming a public system is intrinsically better than a free-market system, that Cuba's public system so qualifies, and ignoring the fact that a privatized for-profit competitive healthcare system in a frickin' communist country would make no sense in the first place. If you have a non-communist 'second-tier' example, feel free to use it, otherwise you're missing the whole point.

I'm assuming nothing, the facts bear me out in this case. The US has the worst health care in the first world.

No, you're ignoring the known, reported differences in IMR calculations country-by-country, which in at least some cases of first-world nations (e.g. Russia) results in 20-25% shifts in the data. Look it up.

Prove it, and don't use Wikipedia.

There's lies, damned lies, and then statistics. You're guilty of mindless use of all three (especially your damned-lies attempts to claim that I'm lying just to cover up your own ignorance).

Ahh what's the matter little man, don't like the truth?

We're encouraged here when insured and still don't . . . do you really think we'll be more inclined to go when we're having to wait in absurdly long lines?

Prove the universal health care results in long wait times.

Why do people think the US is rich enough to do everything in the world? In 2007, we spent 1.62 TRILLION . . . over half the budget . . . on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, and Welfare. (For those counting at home, Medicare and Medicaid alone cost 670.9 billion.) Add another 243 billion on interest on the national debt, and you're at over two-thirds of our 2.8 trillion dollar budget.

I don't know, maybe if you weren't wasting billions on the Iraqi war you could spend that on health care, it doesn't cost that much.

Hillary claims her plan to nationalize healthcare will only cost 110 billion, but that's obviously crap . . . SCHIP alone costs 72 billion, and that's not for everyone, or even most everyone. Not to mention the lost revenue from the healthcare industry taxes.

So?

1. It's not free.
2. What makes it a right?

Because you are bankrupting a good portion of your citzenry on medical expenses.

I'm sorry, I mistakenly thought you wanted to discuss nationalized health care's pros and cons. Seafort brought it up and you continued it.

Or would reading my pointless rambling have deflated your silly "libertarian wank fest" claim?

No reading your pointless ramblings really is pointless as typically you either have no bloody point or you bury it in a mess of verbage. Here's a hint: state your points in plain language and simply. There's no need to ask your opponent to wade through filth because your trying to confuse the issue. And if you notice I did respond to your ramblings but you chose to ignore them in favour of a tirade.

Captain Seafort wrote:So even when I agree with something you post you whinge and whine about it?

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Have you no shame in attempting to claim that you're agreeing with me when you strip something of its context and otherwise misquote it?

Suppose I took the above quoted section and quoted you as saying "I agree with you", then started claiming you were reversing yourself when you disagreed with me on some topic? All those words appear, but obviously the context is . . . oh for crying out loud, you know this, why am I even explaining? Quit being a liar.

I refuse to acept an "exit route" that involves any golden mean fallacy

It's not automatically a golden mean fallacy to suggest that both sides might have fault. However, it is totally unreasonable to argue that only one side or another has fault at all. Like I said before, you can debate whether or not Bush was right to impose his conditions on SCHIP legislation, but you're dead wrong in claiming the Democrats are blameless for pushing their agenda, knowing it would fail, for political points at the expense of the poor children.

Bush's action's were attempted blackmail pure and simple.

Blackmail? What are you smoking? He issued a clear warning *months before the program would cease to exist*. The Democrats waited until the program would cease to exist before engaging in obvious political grandstanding, and they did so knowingly and at the expense of the poor children they're claiming Bush doesn't care about.

I fail to understand how you feel that the Democrats are the end-all be-all of morality under such circumstances. They used and are using poor children, harming them for the good of the party. Their own words attest to this.

Whatever you think of his beliefs, Bush at least is sticking to his principles. Do you really think he vetoed that bill for personal or party gain? No, he did it . . . in his mind . . . for the American taxpayer. This after he'd already authorized a vast increase in SCHIP funding that the Democrats rejected in favor of their obvious self-serving political ploy.

I fail to understand how you could possibly believe what you claim.

I'm not sure whether to be irritated by your inability to see this or pity you for it.

Me, I'm doing both. I pity you for the obvious intellectual dishonesty you exhibit on the veto subject (and other matters addressed in this post), and am irritated that, like the blindness you've chosen in favor of your Bush Derangement Syndrome, you seem to have a similar blind spot in regards to me.

You truly astonish.

Cpl Kendall wrote:And there was such a public outcry over the experiment that the dual tier public/private system in Quebec never got off the ground.

I fail to understand how your claims can be so contrary to multiple news sources. Please provide some sort of evidence for your claim, because casual searches have only provided contrary statements. Like the article I linked to said, as of August Quebec's private system was growing . . . ergo it was off the ground, and ergo public outcry had not ended it at that time. Do you have some evidence for some vast retroactive change in the past month or so?

Who's dodging? You're assuming a public system is intrinsically better than a free-market system, that Cuba's public system so qualifies, and ignoring the fact that a privatized for-profit competitive healthcare system in a frickin' communist country would make no sense in the first place. If you have a non-communist 'second-tier' example, feel free to use it, otherwise you're missing the whole point.

I'm assuming nothing, the facts bear me out in this case. The US has the worst health care in the first world.

Based on what? Even Canadian comparisons only suggest rough equivalence, though the Quebec example suggests otherwise.

No, you're ignoring the known, reported differences in IMR calculations country-by-country, which in at least some cases of first-world nations (e.g. Russia) results in 20-25% shifts in the data. Look it up.

Prove it, and don't use Wikipedia.

I was merely keeping it simple for you, since you seem to have such difficulty for the concept. If you don't want information from Wikipedia, then you can bloody well click on the links from which the content is drawn. Otherwise you're simply mashing your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge the facts . . . thereby "ignoring the known, reported differences in IMR calculations country-by-country".

There's lies, damned lies, and then statistics. You're guilty of mindless use of all three (especially your damned-lies attempts to claim that I'm lying just to cover up your own ignorance).

Ahh what's the matter little man, don't like the truth?

I love the truth, which is why I'm forced to reject your claims contrary to it.

We're encouraged here when insured and still don't . . . do you really think we'll be more inclined to go when we're having to wait in absurdly long lines?

Prove the universal health care results in long wait times.

You're not even trying to be rational. Damn near every country that has nationalized health care has had excessive wait time problems. Examples include Canada, Japan, the UK, and probably just about any other one you'd care to reference.

Why do people think the US is rich enough to do everything in the world? In 2007, we spent 1.62 TRILLION . . . over half the budget . . . on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, and Welfare. (For those counting at home, Medicare and Medicaid alone cost 670.9 billion.) Add another 243 billion on interest on the national debt, and you're at over two-thirds of our 2.8 trillion dollar budget.

I don't know, maybe if you weren't wasting billions on the Iraqi war you could spend that on health care, it doesn't cost that much.

Uh-huh:

Hillary claims her plan to nationalize healthcare will only cost 110 billion, but that's obviously crap . . . SCHIP alone costs 72 billion, and that's not for everyone, or even most everyone. Not to mention the lost revenue from the healthcare industry taxes.

So?

That's the best that you can do? Come on, "little man". Pretend that you're not just replying to disagree with Evil Ole Me.

1. It's not free.
2. What makes it a right?

Because you are bankrupting a good portion of your citzenry on medical expenses.

Illogical. That neither makes it a right nor does it even make mathematic sense.

Already the government spends almost as much as we spend on our military on the semi-nationalized health care we have. That's almost a quarter of the budget on Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera, which are underfunded for what they accomplish.

I'd certainly love to be able to keep a quarter of my taxes. And you're telling me that you think we should have to pay more? Who's bankrupting the citizens? My insurance payments, including employer contributions, are certainly nowhere near a quarter of my tax amount.

I'm sorry, I mistakenly thought you wanted to discuss nationalized health care's pros and cons. Seafort brought it up and you continued it.

Or would reading my pointless rambling have deflated your silly "libertarian wank fest" claim?

No reading your pointless ramblings really is pointless as typically you either have no bloody point or you bury it in a mess of verbage.

Your density and limited attention span are not my problem.

Here's a hint: state your points in plain language and simply.

What, like "So?" If you aren't capable of understanding my posts, perhaps the fault is not mine. Ever think of that?

DSG2k wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:So even when I agree with something you post you whinge and whine about it?

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Have you no shame in attempting to claim that you're agreeing with me when you strip something of its context and otherwise misquote it?

I quoted you word-for-word, without removing anything from within the quote. The fact that you then went on to give examples of this stupidity is quite relevant.

I refuse to accept an "exit route" that involves any golden mean fallacy

It's not automatically a golden mean fallacy to suggest that both sides might have fault. However, it is totally unreasonable to argue that only one side or another has fault at all. Like I said before, you can debate whether or not Bush was right to impose his conditions on SCHIP legislation, but you're dead wrong in claiming the Democrats are blameless for pushing their agenda, knowing it would fail, for political points at the expense of the poor children.

It is, however, a golden mean when the fault clearly lies with a single party - ie Bush.

Bush's action's were attempted blackmail pure and simple.

Blackmail? What are you smoking? He issued a clear warning *months before the program would cease to exist*. The Democrats waited until the program would cease to exist before engaging in obvious political grandstanding, and they did so knowingly and at the expense of the poor children they're claiming Bush doesn't care about.

The timescale over which the aforementioned blackmail took place is utterly irrelevant.

I fail to understand how you feel that the Democrats are the end-all be-all of morality under such circumstances. They used and are using poor children, harming them for the good of the party. Their own words attest to this.

They pushed to improve government-funded medical cover. They stuck to this principle despite Bush trying to blackmail them into dropping it. While they were also playing party politics, the end result, had Bush not refused to place the welfare of those who elected him, and the authority of the more recently elected representatives of the general public above his own opinions.

Whatever you think of his beliefs, Bush at least is sticking to his principles. Do you really think he vetoed that bill for personal or party gain? No, he did it . . . in his mind . . . for the American taxpayer. This after he'd already authorized a vast increase in SCHIP funding that the Democrats rejected in favor of their obvious self-serving political ploy.

I fail to understand how you could possibly believe what you claim.

They were both playing party politics. The difference is that the Democrats method of doing so would have resulted in improved health cover for the US public, while Bush's method ultimately destroyed much of that cover. Your habit of holding Bush up on a pedestal as a paragon while simultaneously accusing me of doing the same with the democrats is quite amusing.

You're not even trying to be rational. Damn near every country that has nationalized health care has had excessive wait time problems. Examples include Canada, Japan, the UK, and probably just about any other one you'd care to reference.

Yes, waiting times inevitably increase when you're not allowed to turn away cases you don't like.

Captain Seafort wrote:

DSG2k wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:So even when I agree with something you post you whinge and whine about it?

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Have you no shame in attempting to claim that you're agreeing with me when you strip something of its context and otherwise misquote it?

I quoted you word-for-word, without removing anything from within the quote.

You're a liar, Seafort. You removed the rest of the sentence, ergo the context of the words. "Frankly, most Americans are stupid . . . myself included . . . and only go to the doctor if something's obviously wrong." Obviously a limited case which you attempt to mischaracterize in global terms.

I could just as readily take your views on Iraq and mangle them similarly:

"your surge is working" - Captain Seafort

Wouldn't you be annoyed if that was presented as your policy position amongst your anti-war buddies?

You're simply being a child, thinking yourself clever for engaging in creationist-style misquotation, employed as an attack within your sig in the hopes that your character attack might prevent others from actually reading what I say, just as you fail to do.

The truly obnoxious part is that you're actually trying to defend your wrongdoing by feigning ignorance that you're misquoting and misrepresenting.

More later.

come on everyone, its not worth, treading on anyones' feelings here, its just a forum

DSG2k wrote:snip

You really are rattled aren't you. So much verbage over a little quote. And since I said that the surge is working, your quote is an accurate depiction of my opinion WRT to the current state of the surge. If you'd moved my words around, or selective missed words out, to imply that I'd said the surge would continue to work, then I'd have cause for complaint.

Granitehewer wrote:come on everyone, its not worth, treading on anyones' feelings here, its just a forum

Your right, Darkstar this discussion is at an end.

Captain Seafort wrote:You really are rattled aren't you.

No, I just don't like trolls. I've given you the benefit of the doubt previously, but I find it impossible to do so now.

1. You are taking a completely irrational position regarding Bush and the Democrats, and accusing me of a position I do not hold regarding him on a pedestal. I presumed this was mere Bush Derangement Syndrome on your part mixed with straw man fallaciousness, but now my opinion is different (see below).

2. You are taking a completely irrational position regarding quotations, meant solely to defend your dishonest tactics. These dishonest tactics of yours involve the attempt to attack my character based on what you know I did not say. "Frankly, most Americans are stupid . . . myself included . . . and only go to the doctor if something's obviously wrong." Obviously a limited case which you attempt to mischaracterize in global terms, and turn into a character attack in your every post.

3. You're also the fellow who, when challenged regarding the "liberal", "leftist" media, tried to take the term "liberal media" and re-imagine it regarding a different definition of "liberal" than regarding political spectrum, thereby pretending to have a defense. Such obvious charlatanism and semantic gamesmanship was clearly dishonest, yet you tried to defend it.

4. You'll even reverse yourself in regards to past statements when confronted. You argued a month ago that US troops were achieving very little by being in Iraq, yet now you've just claimed the surge is working. Well, which is it?

5. You're all a-twitter that you think you've rattled me.

From all of the above, what we see is a pattern of dishonest debate tactics mixed with a confession of trying to rattle your opponents via their use.

Now that you are employing dishonesty and taking pleasure when you think you've rattled someone, I can only assume that your entire argument is a ruse based on hoping to get a rise out of me and waste my time. In other words, I do not believe you're being honest with your opinions.

Honestly, this is actually still giving you some benefit of the doubt, since it implies that you're merely dishonest instead of maliciously insane.

Stop your trolling, Seafort. Be a reasonable discusser instead of a dishonest debater. Act like you're not a teenager. Be someone to be laughed with, not laughed at.