I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Michael D. Higgins: President Of Ireland

Hits: 5961 | Rating: (3.3) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: madest
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:02:20 AM
@HA: i don't really need help arguing for universal healthcare, but your example of how your government spends more publicly does a good job of showing how a universal system actually decreases the amount of public spending, thanks!

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 11:33:26 AM
@patchgrabber: i don't really need help arguing for universal healthcare, but your example of how your government spends more publicly does a good job of showing how a universal system actually decreases the amount of public spending, thanks!

If you truely believe that, then you've drank the Kool-Aid my friend. Showing that our system spends more public money than yours (per capita of course - standardization is key) defeats your argument that our system is "more privatized."

I would expect a scientist to know better.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 11:19:31 AM
@HA: i don't really need help arguing for universal healthcare, but your example of how your government spends more publicly does a good job of showing how a universal system actually decreases the amount of public spending, thanks!

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 11:03:38 AM
@patchgrabber: I think I've finally got you figured out. As far as I can tell, you agree that we are headed in the wrong direction. Is that fair?

Yet, for some reason, in every debate we have, you insist of varying that direction by only a fraction of a degree.

The analogy I've provided is sound. You cannot judge one system based on another. To further my color analogy, I cannot use pink (a shade of red - arguably) as evidence for my argument that red is awesome. In addition, I do not accept your claim that the US system is "more privatized." Consider the amount of public funding per unit population from both our countries, and it is obvious that ours is more public in nature than even yours.

I'd like to see you put up some numbers for cost of healthcare before 1960

I'll see what I can find. I am referencing research done during my college years.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 10:58:09 AM
If you really want to compare a completely private system to a completely public one, then it's a philosophical debate and you can't use any real-world numbers or examples in your arguments. You have to argue the ideal private system to the ideal public system, that is a fair debate. You can't require one standard of measure for one and a different one for the other.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 10:57:20 AM
but I assure you that technology changed between 1900 and 1965 as well, as costs were much more stable during that timeframe.

Technology changed more between 1950-1980 than the time frame you describe, but that's neither here nor there. I'd like to see you put up some numbers for cost of healthcare before 1960, as I've been looking and have a hard time finding anything. Source your claim.

Let us consider red to be good, and yellow to be bad. Can we compare orange to red and use that as evidence that yellow is bad? No... They're still all merely wavelength

That's the best you've got? A comparison to colour? The logic is sound, there should be at least *some* improvement if policies of a system you describe are used. There are none.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 10:44:21 AM
@patchgrabber: That's because I can't compare real stats and numbers to leprechauns.

See before 1965. This was the "de facto" standard before Medicare and Medicaid. Now I know you will argue that it is old, and technology changes, but I assure you that technology changed between 1900 and 1965 as well, as costs were much more stable during that timeframe.

then it stands to reason that following it partially should produce partially better results

Let us consider red to be good, and yellow to be bad. Can we compare orange to red and use that as evidence that yellow is bad? No... They're still all merely wavelengths.

This is not the case. Healthcare costs should always rise with time, because you have a bigger population requiring more services.

You're graph is cost/GDP. This adjusts for population... This point is invalid for the discussion.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 9:59:22 AM
By showing that your model (public) is cheaper per unit than our "more privatized model" you fail to show that your model (public) is cheaper than a private system.

That's because I can't compare real stats and numbers to leprechauns. If an ideology is really better than others at producing general prosperity or fiscal benefits, then it stands to reason that following it partially should produce partially better results. This is not the case. Healthcare costs should always rise with time, because you have a bigger population requiring more services. The difference is the amount with which the costs increase. If you want to talk about reasonable arguments, suggesting a model which doesn't exist is a pretty poor argument, because how can either of us know how exactly it will work? Do you have any small-scale examples that we can compare?

abrxax
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 72 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 9:48:48 AM
Most of the arguments angst universal health care center around the fact of can't afford it don't use it. EVERYONE WILL USE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!! whether or not you can afford it. You don't have a choice. You will get sick, you will get hurt. Why should someone declare bankruptcy because they got sick. Did you ask to get sick. Did you do something on purpose to get a infection?
That's right you chose to slip on ice. You found the sickest person you could find and share a drink out of the same cup with them. You put cancer up your own ass.
Thats why our health insurance keeps going up.
Thats why meds cost more.
Thats why hospitals keep closing.
ER's have to treat you. Dr.s are sworn to save lives and they will. But will I pay a $10,000 ER bill for breaking my ankle? If you think I will your out of your damm mind.
Think I walk into a ER with ID. HA! Its free one way or another. Someone else will pay for it one way or another. At least with universal EVERYONE PA

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 8:26:56 AM
@patchgrabber: When it comes down to the health of a nation's people, you should be looking for the best care, not the best bang for your buck, although that too seems to be the public system.

Now this is a much more reasonable argument. The issue still is this though: we cannot afford it. In life, what happens when you cannot afford something as an individual? Do you get to have it? No, of course not.

Yet here we have a government that cannot afford much right now (consider our debt and budget gaps) yet you still insist on spending. Unfortunately, you cannot spend money you do not have. Therefore, the government would be forced to increase revenue (higher taxes, borrowing, printing, inflation, etc.) to subsidize it. To me, this is nonsensical.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 8:24:24 AM
@patchgrabber: I'm referring to increased costs (that is afterall what I stated). Your graph demonstrates my point perfectly. In each one of these situations - including the US - a public healthcare option was created and healthcare costs immediately increased.

I appreciate the help and all but I was doing fine on my own =). Thank you though.

Now, to address your need to compare total public healthcare with a "more privatized system" - this is poor reasoning. By showing that your model (public) is cheaper per unit than our "more privatized model" you fail to show that your model (public) is cheaper than a private system. Afterall, as you suggest, there still exists plenty of intervention.

the fact is that more government intervention leads to 1) better care, and 2) cheaper care

This fact has strong evidence in the contrary (see my first paragraph).

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 7:52:03 AM
Now, I can already hear you foaming at the mouth about how "government intervention" is the problem (because single-villain ideologies never get old), but the fact is that more government intervention leads to 1) better care, and 2) cheaper care. When it comes down to the health of a nation's people, you should be looking for the best care, not the best bang for your buck, although that too seems to be the public system.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 7:50:01 AM
Every instance of a public health option EVER has led to higher costs.

If you're referring to initial costs, then yes. In Canada, after universal care, costs went up right away, and closed the %GDP gap between Canada and the US. But if you look at the cost over time, ours is dwarfed by your wasteful system. The government monopoly on healthcare allows for better prices on drugs, more of the money goes to actual care, and our administration costs are lower than yours. It's eerily similar to your argument that Keynesian economics more-or-less works in the short term, but is not great in the long term. The same applies with universal care. This shows the difference in cost as %GDP and you can see that a more privatized system leads to *much* larger costs in the long term.


HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 6:46:52 AM
@abrxax: Any who disagrees with universal health care for all US citizens is a rich retard

I disagree and I am middle class; by no means am I rich.

There are too many arguments against what you consider "universal health care" that I cannot hope to cover but a fraction of them. That being said, here goes:

1. Healthcare was more affordable BEFORE Medicare/Medicaid. Every instance of a public health option EVER has led to higher costs.
2. Since we are a federal republic, it is the right of the states to decide of public health policy.
3. For every $1 dispersed by the government, $5 goes to bureaucracy. With private charity, that figure drops to $0.33.
4. Government regulation creates base operating points arbitrarily, thus creating artifical cost floors.

Oh ya and too big to fail is too big to exist.

I agree; they would have been unable without government.


abrxax
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 72 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 5:19:04 AM
Oh ya and too big to fail is too big to exist.

They wanted our money and they got it any way they could.

abrxax
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 72 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 5:17:15 AM
Any who disagrees with universal health care for all US citizens is a rich retard. Before I got a job with good health care I used to keep a suture kit in my house. Its a horrible, horrible thing to have to stitch yourself up from a cut feeling it because "I can't afford to goto a ER" How can anyone justify someone not having access to affordable, available basic health care. I want to know your argument but I really don't care about it.

miasmaat
Female, 18-29, Western US
 299 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 2:11:05 AM
FKING A!!

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 14389 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:27:50 PM
What a loud-mouthed, arrogant little prick! From his holier-than-thou attitude, you would never know his pooty "country" is in the midst of a total f***ing economic collapse.

Yeah, let's take our economic advice from this Guinness-swilling retard.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:15:45 PM
@madest: It was greedy rich people looking for a quick buck.


Yes - and without the assistance of Freddy and Fannie, they would not have been successful to the extent of economic collapse. Congratulations on agreeing with me - I know it wasn't your intention.

See @madest, what you continue to fail to realize is that business is very much like a human being - greedy, selfish, and limited by finance. Much a like a person, business has endless wants, yet limited means. Unfortunately, in this case, the government removed the "limited means" aspect.

Imagine someone giving you a firearm and filling the room with hundreds of copies of me. That person tells you it's wrong to shoot anybody, but you will not suffer any consequences if you do. You would shoot all of my copies. Understand?

paperduck
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1706 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:14:28 PM
this is a heavily edited version, listen to full version for the complete-ass-tearing. our politicians seem like idiots compared to foreign ones.

ledzeppeloyd
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2304 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:00:48 PM
YEA!!!!

CoyoteKing
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 2994 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 6:27:33 PM
haha that Irishman tore into his ass

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6458 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:28:19 PM
It wasn't Freddie and Fannie that destroyed the economy. It was greedy rich people looking for a quick buck. Predatory bankers, Investment banks, Insurance companies, Ratings agencies, The SEC and even House Flippers. Your finger pointing at Freddie and Fannie proves you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:04:50 PM
I'm inclined to agree with the sentiments presented, especially on the notion that there should be a social floor that no-one should fall through in any responsible society. But then, I'm Irish, so I'm probably biased.

Oh, almost forgot. The other sentiment I agree with is the tea party being a pack of wankers. And that's nothing to do with being Irish.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:45:24 PM
@mesovortex: If anything Obama reversed quite a bit of damage and even though the economy is stagnant, it's not tanking or on the verge of collapse like it was in 2008.

This is incorrect. The damage has not been reversed, merely temporarily mitigated by printing, manipulating interest rates, and borrowing (among others).

I'm sorry, but you cannot spend your way out of a recession. You must back away and allow the market to reset. Eventually, Obama will no longer be able to "hold up" the housing market and it will crash/reset. By prolonging this, it makes the eventual collapse more catastrophic.

What I am saying is that, in the short-term - it's great policy for individuals. In the long-term, it is terrible policy for the economy (and subsequently the individual).

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.