American election.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think universal healthcare could be made sustainable and reasonable--like medicare for all?

Here's the problem: it instantly becomes the biggest-budget tax item, at least twice the cost of the nearest competitor, which would be universal public education, a thing that Leftists will definitely not forgo. Between them, they bankrupt the State, or else access becomes problematic, and people start to die or deteriorate while waiting for procedures.

I've seen it tried. I see how it plays out. I wish everybody could have free healthcare with no negative consequences. But it's just not economically possible to sustain. So Leftists need to stop making it an all-or-nothing discussion, because what they're really choosing between is a collapsed healthcare system or a bankrupt economy. They need to open up the middle alternatives.

Would you grant allowing abortion up to a certain point in pregnancy, perhaps the first 4 months or something like that or is abortion of any kind at any point a no go?

Well, the ethical issue is actually quite simple. In fact, everybody knows it is. It's "a pregnancy a human being?" If it is, then all ethical options have to be constrained to that fact.

However, this is not problematic. We have such things as contraceptives, and of contraceptive procedures as well. In 99% (that is the actual statistic) of cases, the producing of the baby was, in fact, a result of a woman's choice...so women already effectively have all the "choice" they can demand. Moreover, there's absolutely no good reason why adoption isn't being used. There is a desperate demand for healthy babies, and not enough supply to meet it. Given all that, there's no need or rationale for the murder of a baby...except that the woman in question has chosen to be irresponsible, and afterward is so jealous of her fetus that she would rather butcher him/her than think of him/her being taken into somebody else's home and cherished.

I such a case, I propose the Solomon Solution: give the baby to the woman who will love him/her. There are presently plenty of those.

As far as environmental management that destroys the environment, I don't think any of us want that, although bringing coal back online doesn't sound very smart at first glance. Would you agree to discontinue coal plants and replace them with more efficient and/or sustainable types?

Problem: we have insufficient "sustainable types." Wind, for example, works only in a relatively small part of the world, and at great expense produces not enough energy to serve us at all. Waves have not proved useful, for similar reasons. Waterfalls are considerably better, but in short supply...and nuclear...well, you know how that goes.

"More efficient plants"? Absolutely, if we can. But right now, our need for energy far exceeds the ability of any of these options (except nuclear). And energy is indispensable in cold climes especially, even if we're not powering air conditioners in hot ones. So the energy has to come from somewhere. What energy source would you recommend?

[Gary Childress]

Do you think universal healthcare could be made sustainable and reasonable--like medicare for all?

Here's the problem: it instantly becomes the biggest-budget tax item, at least twice the cost of the nearest competitor, which would be universal public education, a thing that Leftists will definitely not forgo. Between them, they bankrupt the State, or else access becomes problematic, and people start to die or deteriorate while waiting for procedures.

I've seen it tried. I see how it plays out. I wish everybody could have free healthcare with no negative consequences. But it's just not economically possible to sustain. So Leftists need to stop making it an all-or-nothing discussion, because what they're really choosing between is a collapsed healthcare system or a bankrupt economy. They need to open up the middle alternatives.

Would you grant allowing abortion up to a certain point in pregnancy, perhaps the first 4 months or something like that or is abortion of any kind at any point a no go?

Well, the ethical issue is actually quite simple. In fact, everybody knows it is. It's "a pregnancy a human being?" If it is, then all ethical options have to be constrained to that fact.

However, this is not problematic. We have such things as contraceptives, and of contraceptive procedures as well. In 99% (that is the actual statistic) of cases, the producing of the baby was, in fact, a result of a woman's choice...so women already effectively have all the "choice" they can demand. Moreover, there's absolutely no good reason why adoption isn't being used. There is a desperate demand for healthy babies, and not enough supply to meet it. Given all that, there's no need or rationale for the murder of a baby...except that the woman in question has chosen to be irresponsible, and afterward is so jealous of her fetus that she would rather butcher him/her than think of him/her being taken into somebody else's home and cherished.

I such a case, I propose the Solomon Solution: give the baby to the woman who will love him/her. There are presently plenty of those.

As far as environmental management that destroys the environment, I don't think any of us want that, although bringing coal back online doesn't sound very smart at first glance. Would you agree to discontinue coal plants and replace them with more efficient and/or sustainable types?

Problem: we have insufficient "sustainable types." Wind, for example, works only in a relatively small part of the world, and at great expense produces not enough energy to serve us at all. Waves have not proved useful, for similar reasons. Waterfalls are considerably better, but in short supply...and nuclear...well, you know how that goes.

"More efficient plants"? Absolutely, if we can. But right now, our need for energy far exceeds the ability of any of these options (except nuclear). And energy is indispensable in cold climes especially, even if we're not powering air conditioners in hot ones. So the energy has to come from somewhere. What energy source would you recommend?

So does that mean you are against medicare for all in any form, abortion at any point and believe that it's OK to use coal plants instead of more conventional oil powered ones (at the very least). Unless I'm mistaken, I believe even oil is less 'dirty' than coal is.

[commonsense]

If you stop distinguishing between different opinions, such as "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press", all that remains are the violent extremes.

So you don't see it simply as left vs right.

You see it simply as extremists vs non-extremists (centrists?).

Doesn’t the above mean that it’s the extremists v the other extremists?

[Immanuel Can]

So does that mean you are against medicare for all in any form,

Not at all. If there were such a thing as "free" medical care that was sustainable, I would prefer it, no question. I have zero interest in seeing medicine remain a business, except in those matters (like innovation) where profit does motivate benefit to the public, or where it is unavoidable for sustainability. In general, the public needs would be my concern, not private enterprise.

And there, you and I can agree, Gary. We both want to see the public served as fully as possible with medical care, and served for the indefinite future. But we both have to realize that just making a law saying "Thus it shall be" will not do the trick. That's been tried, and it fails badly. And neither of us wants that to happen.

So I only point out that it cannot be universal and "free," without imposing an onerous tax burden on the ordinary citizen, impairing other important social objectives, slowing down until people can't even get essential procedures they need, impairing innovation and bankrupting the State. And that's just an economic fact; it has nothing to do with ideology at all.

Since we are both concerned with the public weal, we should both want a better solution than a) wild-west medicine, or b) taxing the State into the ground. We have to discuss middle-measures.

abortion at any point

Well, manifestly, abortion as a "contraceptive" is immoral, if a baby is a human being. I doubt you'd campaign for the murdering of any human person, would you, Gary? But there, fortunately, I would point out there are alternatives that are under-considered, and that they achieve any legitimate goals an abortion can be said to have, and I suggest we adopt them. So I think compromise is possible, if we will consider the alternatives.

and believe that it's OK to use coal plants instead of more conventional oil powered ones (at the very least).

Is this your answer to my question: "What energy source would you recommend?" You would opt for oil instead of coal? Just asking, Gary...I want to be sure I understand.

[Skepdick]

If you stop distinguishing between different opinions, such as "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press", all that remains are the violent extremes.

So you don't see it simply as left vs right.

You see it simply as extremists vs non-extremists (centrists?).

Doesn’t the above mean that it’s the extremists v the other extremists?

Is the enemy of my enemy my friend; or my enemy?

[FlashDangerpants]

If you stop distinguishing between different opinions, such as "liberal-biased organizations" and "the Leftist press", all that remains are the violent extremes.

So you don't see it simply as left vs right.

You see it simply as extremists vs non-extremists (centrists?).

Doesn’t the above mean that it’s the extremists v the other extremists?

Is it really in the nature of the fanatic to notice the middle ground?

When Mannie is doing his full "the left" routine, he makes little distinction between Troskyite murderers and Danish social democrats who just want poor people to have access to clean busses, somehow it's all basically the same thing. He thinks you know he is right about everything, and you are lying to yourself if you say otherwise.
Al Qaida thinks you spend all of your time obsessing over them and making plots with the jews to annoy God, and they think you know they are right.
The Proud Boys think you spend all your time making plots with the jews to betray your race, and they think you know this.
The actual communists mostly think you are just a brainwashed lackey of the jews, and betraying your class. They think you don't know because you lack class consciousness, but apart from that they basically the same as the others.

All of them certainly despise me, which is something I am comfortable with.

Extremism is generally quite Manichean. If you aren't all in and fully balls deep, you must be in league with the hated enemy. They have little notion of civilians, and no respect for centrists.

[Immanuel Can]

When Mannie is doing his full "the left" routine, he makes little distinction between Troskyite murderers and Danish social democrats

Actually, he very much does.

The Danish aren't Socialists. Here's their PM saying so, and explaining why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7wgS5tdz4&t=167s.

[FlashDangerpants]

One merely needs to scroll up the page to see you doing the "everybody knows I am right" routine Mannie.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:02 am

Do you think universal healthcare could be made sustainable and reasonable--like medicare for all?

Here's the problem: it instantly becomes the biggest-budget tax item, at least twice the cost of the nearest competitor, which would be universal public education, a thing that Leftists will definitely not forgo. Between them, they bankrupt the State, or else access becomes problematic, and people start to die or deteriorate while waiting for procedures.

Apart from the humanitarian issue, a national health service paid for from national insurance contributions more than pays for itself by keeping the workforce on its feet especially regarding preventive medicine. A healthier population is better placed to resist infections, unemployment, and threats to national sovereignty.

You polemics, Mannie, omit how to make problems better. Your theories are not enough; what we need is how to solve problems.

[Gary Childress]

So does that mean you are against medicare for all in any form,

Not at all. If there were such a thing as "free" medical care that was sustainable, I would prefer it, no question. I have zero interest in seeing medicine remain a business, except in those matters (like innovation) where profit does motivate benefit to the public, or where it is unavoidable for sustainability. In general, the public needs would be my concern, not private enterprise.

And there, you and I can agree, Gary. We both want to see the public served as fully as possible with medical care, and served for the indefinite future. But we both have to realize that just making a law saying "Thus it shall be" will not do the trick. That's been tried, and it fails badly. And neither of us wants that to happen.

So I only point out that it cannot be universal and "free," without imposing an onerous tax burden on the ordinary citizen, impairing other important social objectives, slowing down until people can't even get essential procedures they need, impairing innovation and bankrupting the State. And that's just an economic fact; it has nothing to do with ideology at all.

Since we are both concerned with the public weal, we should both want a better solution than a) wild-west medicine, or b) taxing the State into the ground. We have to discuss middle-measures.

abortion at any point

Well, manifestly, abortion as a "contraceptive" is immoral, if a baby is a human being. I doubt you'd campaign for the murdering of any human person, would you, Gary? But there, fortunately, I would point out there are alternatives that are under-considered, and that they achieve any legitimate goals an abortion can be said to have, and I suggest we adopt them. So I think compromise is possible, if we will consider the alternatives.

and believe that it's OK to use coal plants instead of more conventional oil powered ones (at the very least).

Is this your answer to my question: "What energy source would you recommend?" You would opt for oil instead of coal? Just asking, Gary...I want to be sure I understand.

My question was originally whether you would replace coal plants with other more efficient and/or sustainable types. It's my understanding that oil and natural gas are better alternatives to coal-fired plants in terms of pollution. Do you think we should use coal-fired plants at all?

[Gary Childress]

You polemics, Mannie, omit how to make problems better. Your theories are not enough; what we need is how to solve problems.

I think you have a good point. Access to affordable health insurance is a major problem in the US. I agree that "Obama care" was a farce, caving into insurance companies who would do everything possible to keep their lucrative businesses. But there are perhaps other alternatives worth pursuing. Medicare for all sounds like a promising candidate. Something needs to be done. A lot of people can't afford basic medical care. Penalizing people with tax hikes because they couldn't afford "Obama care" was criminal.

[Sculptor]

You polemics, Mannie, omit how to make problems better. Your theories are not enough; what we need is how to solve problems.

I think you have a good point. Access to affordable health insurance is a major problem in the US. I agree that "Obama care" was a farce, caving into insurance companies who would do everything possible to keep their lucrative businesses. But there are perhaps other alternatives worth pursuing. Medicare for all sounds like a promising candidate. Something needs to be done. A lot of people can't afford basic medical care. Penalizing people with tax hikes because they couldn't afford "Obama care" was criminal.

The problem with Obama care is that it involves ANY insurance companies at all.
Insurance is a leech that sucks at least 20% of the value of any procedure.
It also opens up a blank cheque for over treatment, because when the case is accepted by the insurance company, there is not rationing by treatment, only by cost. That puts back the pressure on the patients (customer) pockets.
The result of all this is that health care is more than double what it is in the UK.
Without a National strategy the system is at the mercy of corruption and competition. Prey to big pharma, who charge what they like for drugs in a system which tend to overtreat, made worst by the US being such a litigious society.

But the most urgent need is to avoid electing another minority president. Trump Stole the 2016 election with 3 million votes less that Hilary.
You might also want to address Fox News whcih is probably the most responsibilty for the juggernaut of lies that it spews into the minds of gullible individuals.

[Immanuel Can]

My question was originally whether you would replace coal plants with other more efficient and/or sustainable types.

Yes. And I asked what you meant.

It's my understanding that oil and natural gas are better alternatives to coal-fired plants in terms of pollution.

If they work better, then why not?

[Immanuel Can]

You polemics, Mannie, omit how to make problems better. Your theories are not enough; what we need is how to solve problems.

Well, that starts with making sure we don't seize an unworkable solution, and pretend it's a workable one. Any real solution is going to have to involve not just idealism, but also real economics.

"Free" healthcare is just not a real thing. It's always very expensive, however you do it. So solutions are all going to be compromises, not imaginary, "one-side-takes-all" kinds of things.

[Gary Childress]

My question was originally whether you would replace coal plants with other more efficient and/or sustainable types.

Yes. And I asked what you meant.

It's my understanding that oil and natural gas are better alternatives to coal-fired plants in terms of pollution.

If they work better, then why not?

So let's dump Trump's idea of bringing back coal. It was a patently stupid idea. And in the meantime, we can also pursue more research and development of wind, solar, and whatnot to make them better alternatives than they currently are. Because if we can make those alternatives work, that would be ideal.