Universal health care in a universe created by God

[FlashDangerpants]

that was Steve Jobs (Apple) not Bill Gates (microsoft)

-Imp

It was also made possible by massive tax-funded investment into the development of first the programmable computer, and then the silicone chip that made it possible to put a computer into such a small space as a house, all of which was absolutely necessary for there to be any invention that Wozniak could design for Jobs to build in his garage in California.

[Lacewing]

What a joke.

Yes! So many GAMES! Some players have built up their card decks with 'power cards' which others simply cannot win against. I'm not going to waste energy trying to play at that table without a comparable level of cards. Instead, I try to notice what else there is beyond that game to work with or enjoy... and perhaps lobbing things at them, when possible, to disrupt their play. All games eventually play themselves out. Then we can clear that table and play something better.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, in IC's opinion, taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. In IC's opinion, the uber wealthy have "earned" their wealth, and everyone else has it "easy" because they don't "take risks" as the wealthy do with their money when they invest it. These are indisputable facts to him. This is "reality" to him. And to question IC's reality is to be "unrealistic". That's all anyone will ever get from him. And not only that, those of us who advocate for universal healthcare are dangerous. We're going to destroy society. Shame on us! Living without health care is just the way things are for some people. Advocating for universal healthcare for them is the way of those who will destroy society, and advocating against universal healthcare is the way of the "realistic".

IC has no more education in economics than he does in philosophy. Go read a book and you will have that education that he lacks, and then you will win your argument easily.

You only need to understand the concepts of insurance and a technical matter called "Adverse Selection" to realise that funding universal healthcare isn't really a very big problem. Although I also saw your comments on gold and you should make a point of properly understanding that money is entirely imaginary. This will help you get to grips with the slightly weird fact that debt is money and money is debt, which is something you need to understand if you want to tax billionaires because the way they avoid taxes is to issue themselves debt and use that as money.

But you are making an error. It isn't necessary to tax the mega-rich to pay for anything in particular because healthcare is cheaper to fund in a universal system than it is via an American style clusterfuck. This is explained by the concepts I listed above, and evidenced by the fact that Canada spends a very measly 11% of GDP on healthcare whereas the USA spends 17% without having better outcomes. To add insult to injury, a little over 50% of US healthcare spending is taxpayer funded anyway. In short, if the alternative is to have a US style system then universal healthcare can properly be said to pay for itself, and thus you don't need new sources of tax income to fund it as the existing ones will feel a lower burden overall.

The reasons and methods for taxing plutocrats are a whole other story. With a basic reading of economics alone you should be able to beat IC up there as well. But the whole thing about it being awful for society if too much wealth accumulates into too few hands is tenuous and presumptive historicism. I wouldn't base my argument on it if I had any alternative. It holds historical truth but that was when land was the basis of wealth. The fortunes made in the AI bubble are taking the whole debt-is-money thing just a little bit too literally.

[Immanuel Can]

So, in IC's opinion, taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. In IC's opinion, the uber wealthy have "earned" their wealth, and everyone else has it "easy" because they don't "take risks" as the wealthy do with their money when they invest it.

Gary, instead of making things up, why don't you just respond to what I DID say?

[Will Bouwman]

But the whole thing about it being awful for society if too much wealth accumulates into too few hands is tenuous and presumptive historicism. I wouldn't base my argument on it if I had any alternative. It holds historical truth but that was when land was the basis of wealth.

As you know, economics is not my strong hand, but it seems to me that wealth has always been a product of what other people will do for you. The most boneheaded way to get people to serve you is force. Next on the whatthefuckery list is making preposterous metaphysical promises. Third is law, which might be predicated on the former, and upheld by the first. Then there are those that provide something that people actually value; you know: Rembrandt, Mozart and the other bloke who did something quite good. Am I hopelessly off course?

[Will Bouwman]

Gary, instead of making things up, why don't you just respond to what I DID say?

Dear oh dear. You really are an irony vacuum.

[Immanuel Can]

Gary, instead of making things up, why don't you just respond to what I DID say?

Dear oh dear. You really are an irony vacuum.

Well, I'll tell you this much: when people run out of arguments about the issues, they always turn to the ad hominem, it seems. So I know, when they do it, that they're angry and losing the grasp on reason.

It's pretty predictable.

[Gary Childress]

So, in IC's opinion, taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. In IC's opinion, the uber wealthy have "earned" their wealth, and everyone else has it "easy" because they don't "take risks" as the wealthy do with their money when they invest it.

Gary, instead of making things up, why don't you just respond to what I DID say?

I was responding to things you have said in the past. Or have you changed your mind, and it is not the case that taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral?

So let it be known IC claims that he does NOT think that taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. Is that true?

If you do not truly believe that taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral, then go ahead and say it. Otherwise, stop playing a shell game. If you don't believe something, then you can confess to not believing it, if you don't believe in something, then say you don't, it's very simple. Everyone knows your tricks and your evasions.

If I have misquoted that, you believe that taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. Then you should be able to say that you do not believe that taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. So can you clarify your standing on that statement? What do you believe?

[Immanuel Can]

So, in IC's opinion, taxing the wealthy more than everyone else is "theft" and immoral. In IC's opinion, the uber wealthy have "earned" their wealth, and everyone else has it "easy" because they don't "take risks" as the wealthy do with their money when they invest it.

Gary, instead of making things up, why don't you just respond to what I DID say?

I was responding to things you have said in the past.

Most of what you wrote were sentences I never said, designed to make my position look unnecessarily narrow or hard in one way or another, so that you could have an emotional outburst and demonstrate yourself "virtuous" in contrast to my supposed excessive and putatively hardline views. I simply reject your paraphrases, and refer you back to what I actually said.

I've been quite clear, if you've been clear in your reading. I'm not against universal healthcare. I'm very much for it...but not in an unrealistic, unsustainable, irrational way, unjust and inevitably hurtful way. I've said that it needs to be fiscally practical...doable...deliverable...that it must not crash the economy and itself...that it must be favourable to keeping doctors and nurses...that it must encourage access to better technology and procedures...that it must not entail absurd, harmful and even fatal wait times...

Is any of that unreasonable? No. It's the very minimum a serious proponent of universal health care would also want to see.

So, since you advocate it, I want to see if you know what "realistic" or "practical" mean, in reference to it, or whether you're just gassing. I want to see your plan for implementing it, along with numbers that actually make sense, to show you can make it can work.

But your numbers don't add up. And your proposed strategies don't work. You can't just "tax the rich." You're going to end up taxing everybody, and crashing the economy, too. And the Nancy Pelosis of the world are simply going to shelter their money or leave the country...and you've offered no plan for stopping them doing it. And you need at least 5 trillion, sustainably, every year. Probably more. But let's say that's it.

Now, how are you going to achieve that?

[Gary Childress]

Gary, instead of making things up, why don't you just respond to what I DID say?

I was responding to things you have said in the past.

Most of what you wrote were sentences I never said, designed to make my position look unnecessarily narrow or hard in one way or another, so that you could have an emotional outburst and demonstrate yourself "virtuous" in contrast to my supposed excessive and putatively hardline views. I simply reject your paraphrases, and refer you back to what I actually said.

I've been quite clear, if you've been clear in your reading. I'm not against universal healthcare. I'm very much for it...but not in an unrealistic, unsustainable, irrational way, unjust and inevitably hurtful way. I've said that it needs to be fiscally practical...doable...deliverable...that it must not crash the economy and itself...that it must be favourable to keeping doctors and nurses...that it must encourage access to better technology and procedures...that it must not entail absurd, harmful and even fatal wait times...

Is any of that unreasonable? No. It's the very minimum a serious proponent of universal health care would also want to see.

So, since you advocate it, I want to see if you know what "realistic" or "practical" mean, in reference to it, or whether you're just gassing. I want to see your plan for implementing it, along with numbers that actually make sense, to show you can make it can work.

But your numbers don't add up. And your proposed strategies don't work. You can't just "tax the rich." You're going to end up taxing everybody, and crashing the economy, too. And the Nancy Pelosis of the world are simply going to shelter their money or leave the country...and you've offered no plan for stopping them doing it. And you need at least 5 trillion, sustainably, every year. Probably more. But let's say that's it.

Now, how are you going to achieve that?

You have not shown sound evidence to prove your assertion that Medicare for everyone won't work. Either that or you are hiding the exhaustive analysis you did. Simply saying, it'll never work, is not proving that it will never work. But proving it doesn't matter to you because you don't want it to work.

[Gary Childress]

Maybe IC believes if we perform a sacrifice to God of a goat, Medicare for all will work. Christians ultimately cannot be reasoned with unless the Bible tells them something is reasonable.

[Will Bouwman]

Gary, instead of making things up, why don't you just respond to what I DID say?

Dear oh dear. You really are an irony vacuum.

Well, I'll tell you this much: when people run out of arguments about the issues, they always turn to the ad hominem, it seems. So I know, when they do it, that they're angry and losing the grasp on reason.

It's pretty predictable.

Ha! That's not prediction, it's projection. You are the only contributor to this forum unaware that you are describing yourself.

[Will Bouwman]

Maybe IC believes if we perform a sacrifice to God of a goat, Medicare for all will work. Christians ultimately cannot be reasoned with unless the Bible tells them something is reasonable.

Well exactly; things like slavery, rape, genocide and eternal torture simply for not believing every word of it.

Just to add to the above, rather than not believing every word of the Bible, it is not believing every part of a given religious nut's interpretation. In other words; if you do not agree with everything some nut job says, they believe their sky daddy is going to let you suffer forever. That is narcissism with bells and ribbons.

[phyllo]

Maybe IC believes if we perform a sacrifice to God of a goat, Medicare for all will work. Christians ultimately cannot be reasoned with unless the Bible tells them something is reasonable.

Jesus will come back to rule and all the problems will be solved.

In the mean time, prepare for his return.

[Immanuel Can]

I was responding to things you have said in the past.

Most of what you wrote were sentences I never said, designed to make my position look unnecessarily narrow or hard in one way or another, so that you could have an emotional outburst and demonstrate yourself "virtuous" in contrast to my supposed excessive and putatively hardline views. I simply reject your paraphrases, and refer you back to what I actually said.

I've been quite clear, if you've been clear in your reading. I'm not against universal healthcare. I'm very much for it...but not in an unrealistic, unsustainable, irrational way, unjust and inevitably hurtful way. I've said that it needs to be fiscally practical...doable...deliverable...that it must not crash the economy and itself...that it must be favourable to keeping doctors and nurses...that it must encourage access to better technology and procedures...that it must not entail absurd, harmful and even fatal wait times...

Is any of that unreasonable? No. It's the very minimum a serious proponent of universal health care would also want to see.

So, since you advocate it, I want to see if you know what "realistic" or "practical" mean, in reference to it, or whether you're just gassing. I want to see your plan for implementing it, along with numbers that actually make sense, to show you can make it can work.

But your numbers don't add up. And your proposed strategies don't work. You can't just "tax the rich." You're going to end up taxing everybody, and crashing the economy, too. And the Nancy Pelosis of the world are simply going to shelter their money or leave the country...and you've offered no plan for stopping them doing it. And you need at least 5 trillion, sustainably, every year. Probably more. But let's say that's it.

Now, how are you going to achieve that?

You have not shown sound evidence to prove your assertion that Medicare for everyone won't work.

I have. The bill is at minimum 5 trillion (US) per year. How are you going to get that money, and get it perpetually, so universal health care can be supplied to the US? And, we might add, what will the bill be when the bill for universal health care for ALL comes in. Show me you can do it, and you have a case. But even at a glance you can see that it is statistically impossible -- unless you have some solution nobody has even thought of until now.

Go ahead.