McCain's Health Care Plan: Reverse Robin Hood

[David Wong]

Sometimes different kinds of goods can be provided more efficiently in different ways. I love capitalism for most things we need.

One example is roads. Do you think we would be better off if we switched from our socialist system of providing roads to a capitalist one where each road is privately owned and you have to pay tolls to use it? This would be less efficient because, for one thing, it would require millions of toll booths and people to man them. Going from A to B would also require more time and hassle. Instead we have public roads funded by taxes. It's just more efficient that way.

So lets keep capitalism for things it is most efficient at delivering and think about the best system to provide other goods. There are many different models out there that seem to work more efficiently than the US model.

It's shameful that you should even have to explain that. This is the sort of thing you'd think every citizen would understand by the second grade. The entire premise of living in a community, rather than as violent, paranoid nomads, is that we share some resources and make some sacrifices specifically so that individual achievement can happen.

It's a shocking failure of our educational system that you can have adults walking around thinking it's a switch you flip on or off: Freedom or Socialism, as if every nation on earth is 100% one or the other and nothing exists in between. That's at such shocking odds with reality that it boggles my mind to think of how brainwashed someone would have to be to believe it.

I don't think I could ever listen to enough talk radio to think that.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Sometimes different kinds of goods can be provided more efficiently in different ways. I love capitalism for most things we need.

One example is roads. Do you think we would be better off if we switched from our socialist system of providing roads to a capitalist one where each road is privately owned and you have to pay tolls to use it? This would be less efficient because, for one thing, it would require millions of toll booths and people to man them. Going from A to B would also require more time and hassle. Instead we have public roads funded by taxes. It's just more efficient that way.

So lets keep capitalism for things it is most efficient at delivering and think about the best system to provide other goods. There are many different models out there that seem to work more efficiently than the US model.

That's a problem with toll boths, not capitalism. Tolls boths are inefficient whether used under either system, but neither one has to be used under either.

This still doesn't answer any of my points though. Why does this mean that insurence companies should foot the bill for those in poverty?

 

[CaptainManacles]

It's shameful that you should even have to explain that. This is the sort of thing you'd think every citizen would understand by the second grade. The entire premise of living in a community, rather than as violent, paranoid nomads, is that we share some resources and make some sacrifices specifically so that individual achievement can happen.

It's a shocking failure of our educational system that you can have adults walking around thinking it's a switch you flip on or off: Freedom or Socialism, as if every nation on earth is 100% one or the other and nothing exists in between. That's at such shocking odds with reality that it boggles my mind to think of how brainwashed someone would have to be to believe it.

I don't think I could ever listen to enough talk radio to think that.

It's so much easier to say "you obviously listen to a lot of talk radio" then to actually address someone's arguements.

Yes, I am aware of the general notion that government is needed to provide certain services more efficiently, and I reject that notion for a number of reasons, and that's not to say that I couldn't imagine being pursuated on that point. That you automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated baffoon is a failure on your part, not on anyone else's.

And I don't listen to talk radio.

 

[Puppycow]

This still doesn't answer any of my points though. Why does this mean that insurence companies should foot the bill for those in poverty?

My position is not that they should, but that society should by having some sort of national health care system.

That's a problem with toll boths, not capitalism. Tolls boths are inefficient whether used under either system, but neither one has to be used under either.

That's only one example. One way or another it would end up being more hassle to have roads privately owned. If you don't have toll booths, you have to figure out another way to charge the users. And who would police these roads?

 

[Pookster]

Which leads naturally to the conclusions I presented, so yeah, all clear.

Sir, you stated ...

... what you're saying is you have no reasonable criticism of the idea ...

I said no such thing in what I posted. My post was specifically to why McCain should care even when you don't. It's about the political reality of the situation regarding health care. I wasn't aware that it was a requirement that I post whether I had criticism of the specific idea or not in that post. It's irrelevant to what I posted. If you can draw such a conclusion naturally, then you suck at mind reading. Randi should continue to rest easy about losing the million bucks too.

 

[CaptainManacles]

My position is not that they should, but that society should by having some sort of national health care system.

Well, the thread is about the former.

That's only one example. One way or another it would end up being more hassle to have roads privately owned. If you don't have toll booths, you have to figure out another way to charge the users.

I don't see why that is difficult. Charge them a yearly fee for a licence to drive on the road. That's just one idea, I'm sure there are more ways it could be done. The DMV would probably run smoother, and you'd probably get some people who didn't belong on the road off the road. And there's no end to the innovations that might come about.

And who would police these roads?

The police? Private traffic cops?

 

[CaptainManacles]

Sir, you stated ...



I said no such thing in what I posted.

Which is why I said that the conclusion *followed* from what you said.

My post was specifically to why McCain should care even when you don't.

I understand, and your choice to stick to that instead of answer any of my questions or points leads me to a variety of conclusions.

It's about the political reality of the situation regarding health care.

And I addressed the political reality of the situation. We should all vote for McCain for the reasons that you outlined. Thank you for that.

I wasn't aware that it was a requirement that I post whether I had criticism of the specific idea or not in that post.

Generally when you quote and reply someone you should address what they said.

 

[Pookster]

Which is why I said that the conclusion *followed* from what you said.

No, sir. You tried to put words in my mouth. Poor form.

I understand, and your choice to stick to that instead of answer any of my questions or points leads me to a variety of conclusions.

Well, in a weird sort of way, you did ask a question. But then you tried to answer it for me. You have no clue whether I think the idea, on its own merits and ignoring the political reality of the times, is a good or bad idea. Again, you suck at mind reading.

And I addressed the political reality of the situation. We should all vote for McCain for the reasons that you outlined. Thank you for that.

I outlined reasons? LOL Too funny. Considering your ability to read my mind, I'm sure your reality is just as spot on as well.

Generally when you quote and reply someone you should address what they said.

I did ... just not in the way you liked. Too bad. So sad.

 

[CaptainManacles]

No, sir. You tried to put words in my mouth. Poor form.

No, you are lying. I said

So, what you're saying is you have no reasonable criticism of the idea, but there are so many unreasonable people out there that this could hurt McCain?

Which is a question, which you edited to take out that context and make it look like I was putting words in your mouth, poor form indeed. Which to clarify matters I followed up by saying that those were conclusions that I could draw from what you said, if it wasn't already clear enough that I was using a hint of sarcasm. I'm sure all of that was clear to you though, but lying is easier then debating honestly when your position is so absurd. Get thee behind me michael moore.

Well, in a weird sort of way, you did ask a question.

In a weird sort of way? In the way that one forms a question with a question mark?

But then you tried to answer it for me.

Because you failed to answer it yourself. I drew rational conslusion from what you said. Which is not mind reading, no matter how many times that ridiculous arguement is dragged out.

I did ... just not in the way you liked. Too bad. So sad.

No, you said yourself that you didn't, in exasperated shock that anyone would generally assume you were replying to the person you were replying to. Again, I can draw certain conclusions from that kind of logic.

 

[Pookster]

No, you are lying. I said

Yeah, I'm lying if you don't quote the words right after that where you concluded what I believed right out of thin air.

... Which to clarify matters I followed up by saying that those were conclusions that I could draw from what you said,

But I didn't say one word about the merits of the idea, did I? Of course, not. I only referred to the political reality of that type of idea. A totally different thing. The idea may be great, good, lousy, so-so, mostly reflicted or any number of things to me on its own merits. Don't try to read my mind ... you totally suck at it.

... In a weird sort of way? In the way that one forms a question with a question mark?

No, in the weird sort of way that you do the following ...

... Because you failed to answer it yourself. I drew rational conslusion from what you said. Which is not mind reading, no matter how many times that ridiculous arguement is dragged out.

Sir, you asked me the question ... and drew your "rational" conclusion of what I said to it ...in the very same post. How the hell was I supposed to answer it before you even posted it? You asked me a question ... and claim I failed to answer it ... in the same frickin' post! The only conclusion I can reach is that you tried to read my mind. And, yes. You really do suck at it.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Yeah, I'm lying if you don't quote the words right after that where you concluded what I believed right out of thin air.

No, you're lying because there are no words like that to quote.

But I didn't say one word about the merits of the idea, did I? Of course, not.

I've never claimed that you did.

Sir, you asked me the question ... and drew your "rational" conclusion of what I said to it ...in the very same post.

Nope, I asked my question in my first post, you didn't answer, so I drew conclusions. Very simple. Not at all similar to what you've been claiming to have happened. Doesn't require mind reading. Since then you've continued to simply lie about what I said. Your reasoning sucks. Too bad. So sorry.

 

[Pookster]

No, you're lying because there are no words like that to quote.

Sure there are. I underlined them in your post that I quote below.

I've never claimed that you did.

So, how did you draw your conclusion from what I didn't say anything at all about ... other than mind reading? Too frickin' funny.

Nope, I asked my question in my first post, you didn't answer, so I drew conclusions. Very simple. ...

Exactly. You asked the question in the post below ... and expected me to answer before you even posted it ...

So, what you're saying is you have no reasonable criticism of the idea, but there are so many unreasonable people out there that this could hurt McCain? All the more reason to think McCain is the person to vote for, I guess.

So, for the part that I underlined above, quote what I posted that followed the bolded question above that specifically caused you to reach the conclusion that I had no reasonable criticism of the idea? I honestly can't see where I inserted any response to that bolded question before the underline part. Do you? All I see is one space. Do you see anything else?

 

[CaptainManacles]

Sure there are. I underlined them in your post that I quote below.

And as I've clarified more then once and is the most natural conclusion from what you underlined, that is what *I* concluded from what you said, I am more then well aware that you probably do not feel the same.

Exactly. You asked the question in the post below ... and expected me to answer before you even posted it ...

You say "exactly" and then contridict what I said. I said in my first post, which is not what you quoted.

 

[Pookster]

And as I've clarified more then once and is the most natural conclusion from what you underlined, that is what *I* concluded from what you said, I am more then well aware that you probably do not feel the same. ...

So you DID see something other than a space between the bolded and underline part ...

So, what you're saying is you have no reasonable criticism of the idea, but there are so many unreasonable people out there that this could hurt McCain? All the more reason to think McCain is the person to vote for, I guess.

So cool. Because all I said before that post had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I had any reasonable criticism of the idea. Amazing skillz you have there.

 

[CaptainManacles]

So you DID see something other than a space between the bolded and underline part ...

I don't need to, for a number of reasons I've pointed out already and you are clearly ignoring on purpose.

 

[Pookster]

I don't need to, for a number of reasons I've pointed out already and you are clearly ignoring on purpose.

Au contraire. I've been pointing out the absolute absurdity of your "reasons". They were kinda cute reasons, but still absurd ones.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Au contraire. I've been pointing out the absolute absurdity of your "reasons". They were kinda cute reasons, but still absurd ones.

obvious troll is obvious

 

[Pookster]

obvious troll is obvious

Too precious. Especially when you look at our first replies to each other ...

McCain should care. If you're running for President in an era where health care costs and availability is a big issue with many voters, this kind of idea is not something you want to be viewed as supporting ... if this is what he's supporting.

So, what you're saying is you have no reasonable criticism of the idea, but there are so many unreasonable people out there that this could hurt McCain? All the more reason to think McCain is the person to vote for, I guess.

Somewhere in my post where I'm discussing the political reality of McCain supporting any such kind of idea (no mention at all as to whether it was a good one or not), you came out with your reply that just somehow knew I had no reasonable criticism of that idea ... without even asking and allowing me to reply ... before reaching that conclusion. And then you make this post. So precious.

 

[AWPrime]

That's not how the free market works. Most socialists seem to have a problem with this false diachotomy. If you feel compassion for these people you are free to provide them with health care yourself, or get together with other people who feel the same and do so. There is nothing in capitalism forbidding you from doing so. Capitalism will provide anything that someone somewhere has the means and motive to provide, whether that motive is greed or compassion. I just don't see where you get the idea that if other people don't feel the compassion that you do, that you have to force them at gunpoint to be compassionate.

Strange that capitalists such as yourself don't understand the importance of long term investments in society.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Strange that capitalists such as yourself don't understand the importance of long term investments in society.

and what makes you think that? Where did I denounce the importance of long term investments. "We're all dead in the long run" is a common saying from socialist thinkers. Capitalism has always been the economics of the long run. Socialism is about the short term appearence of prosperity.