A Mild Pitting of The Tao's Revenge

For reasons to be explained shortly, I do not engage with the poster known as “The Tao’s Revenge.” Since it’s apparently against the rules to mention this fact outside of the Pit, I am doing so here.

In case anyone is curious, here’s why.

In a thread about socialized medicine, I argued that one should not expect that socialized medicine in the US would work out as well as in Canada or Europe because the US has a large underclass compared to such places. As evidence of America’s larger underclass I pointed to our much higher crime rates.

Here is the thread:

The Tao’s Revenge strawmanned me as follows:

That wasn’t my argument at all. For one thing, I believe that the US can afford and should have “safety nets,” including some form of medical care for the poor. For another, I’m not saying that there is a causal link between crime in America and problems which would be encountered by socialized medicine. Instead, I’m saying that both things are potential effects of another cause, viz. the existence of a large underclass.

I asked The Tao’s Revenge to back up his claim or retract it, which he did not do.

Now, I’m not saying that The Tao’s Revenge is a bad person, or a liar, or an idiot. I don’t know why he or she misrepresented my position and I don’t care. I have no interest in debating with him or her.

By the way, I’m not interested in discussing (in this thread) whether or not I was correct about the underclass and socialized medicine. So for the sake of this thread, let’s assume that my argument was completely wrong. Nor am I interested (in this thread) in discussing whether I am a smart or honest or worthy poster, in general.

Any posts along such lines will be taken as confirmation that The Tao’s Revenge did in fact strawman me.

So let the flames begin! Burn me to a crisp!! Bring it on!!

You certainly have a unique way of framing your pittings. How would you like to see your thread develop?


We can not point out that The Tao’s Revenge was correct and he was not making a straw man, we will be dismissed then by the wise brasil84, but never fear! brasil84 mentions also that we have to assume in this thread that The Tao’s Revenge was correct.
Leaving us only then to discuss…
That maybe what brasil84 really does not like the SDMB but he likes BDSM :slight_smile:

Ideally, a few people would say “Yeah, The Tao’s Revenge got your argument wrong” and then the thread would fade away.
But given my unpopularity, that’s unlikely to happen.

For anyone not wanting to scroll through the initial thread:

As I understand it, brazil84’s argument was “Quality of health care will decline due to the underclass, who cause problems with institutions into which they come into contact” which is separate from his assertion that “The underclass are mainly responsible for our high murder rate, as compared to Canada”. While I think that a causal relationship is strongly implied, I also think brazil84 is technically correct. He did not say that “we can’t afford safety nets due to crime.”

Bolding mine.

I think you mean “demonstrated stupidity and habitually disingenuous debating tactics.” Having watched you in GD quite a bit, i can say that the idea of you pitting someone else for disingenuous debating tactics is pretty rich. Even if your accusation is valid, it would be nothing more that you’ve done dozens of times yourself.

Well, stopped clocks, and all that.

I also think it’s interesting that brazil84 defines the American underclass as “causing social problems.” In some circles, the very presence of a large underclass is seen as a social problem in and of itself, rather than simply being blamed as the cause of social problems.

Oh wow this is my first pitting. Tender moments ya’ll. You only get one first pitting.

Be Gentle!

I really can’t be arsed to interpret the obsessively convoluted op, but I will post this from that thread.

Since most people here seemed baffled at the exact meaning of ‘underclass’ what exactly was I supposed to interpret this odd, uncommon, undefined term as?

Brazil here is just upset, I think, because I used his own debate trick against him:

As noted above, I’m not interested (in this thread) in debating the obligatory tu quoques, but I do find the American underclass issue interesting and I guess I’m willing to get sucked into a hijack. I don’t understand your point, however. I do believe it’s reasonable for public policy to aim towards raising up the underclass. Could you elaborate?

Just in case anyone is confused whenever brazil84 writes “large underclass” he’s using his own version of code for “the blacks

Socialised medicine will never catch on in the US, too many institutions make too much money out of it, and they have a strong lobby.

So the taxpayer will pay for inadequate cover for the poorest, the middle class (what we in the UK call the working class) will pay for it all, and the insurance companies, drug companies and the other leehes will soak up the money.

Those lower orders serve the useful purpose of providing a big stick with which to beat the rest of the workers around the head.

That underclass is therefore necessary.

Just imagine how many workers are tied to the same company because they cannot move their insurance due to medical conditions that are currently covered, but cannot be transferred to another policy funded by another employer as they would be “pre-existing” conditions.

If there were universal healthcare in the US, the labour market would be more flexible, people could move from one employer to another and not be tied down by the threat of uninsured medical expenses.

Quite ironic for a land of the free market, that it is the free market of medical insurance that produces this labour inflexibility.

Who knows, maybe that underclass in the OP exists for a purpose.

Pick the bones out of that lot folks, that’ll make this a far more pit worthy thread!!

Hmm, so the current situation means people are sticking with jobs solely for health care when they could be moving on to better jobs, or ones they’re more suited for?

Sounds like the lack of UHC is making the market inefficient and creating market distortions!

Oh looky, it happened.

Quick, brazil84. . . beg a mod to close the thread and your ideal would have happened. Imagine that.

Yea man beg the mods! It can be the thread you always wanted! Our gift to you.

I agree that “we can’t afford safety nets because we have crime” is not a fair summary brazil84’s argument.

I will interpret any further posting, by anyone, as proof that brazil84 likes to lick donkey balls. Any posts, along any lines, will also be taken as confirmation that I am awesome.

I’ll admit that maybe I miss understood it, but trying reading his postings in that thread and try to parse a definition for “underclass” from it. Clear as mud.

I will ex post facto interpret an interpretations of awesomeness as confirmation that cute lady in the school gym was checking me out for hotness, and not because I, unwittingly, had my fly open, or something equally bad.

To answer this hijack - why didn’t you post in the original thread? - free market has nothing to do with whether or not the US gets a UHC. There is apparently still a bare majority in this country that don’t want to live in a completely socialist society or a commune. Not that we aren’t already close to it…

I don’t know much about Brazil84 since it seems everytime he shows up in a thread, people jump all over him and all he does is defend himself. Boring. However, whether or not “underclass” = “blacks” to him, he is more or less right that one of the many reasons that a UHC is a bad idea here is because there will be so many people on that insurance “policy” who will not be able to afford decent “premiums” that one of two things will happen - taxes will skyrocket for those who can afford them to support the system as it is, or quality of healthcare for everyone will drop. Looks like pretty basic economics - you know, only so much to go around?

You tell those commie bastards, curlcoat! And if they try to tell you that the UK, Israel, and a number of other countries with UHC have a larger percentage living in poverty than the US does, stick that CIA World "Fact"book where the sun don’t shine. Am I right or am I right?

And thanks for confirming that I am awesome.

Ah, another person who cannot tell the difference between the US and any other country. :rolleyes:

I’d still like a cite for why the US is different from say, Canada, Sweden, the UK, and virtually every other first world country in regards to health care. “It just is” is Rush level stupid.

It’s damaging to the economy. Maybe Michigan wouldn’t have been economically crippled so bad if the autos we produce weren’t saddled with an out dated, and costly healthcare system.

Maybe if we had one like our neighbor’s to the North that costs half as much, meaning twice the medical cost is passed on to products we produce, hurting out competitiveness then maybe there wouldn’t be so many American families in my state fearing making next month’s rent.

You cry like Scrooge over making $100,000, and getting taxed. Many families here have to make do with much much less.