Roderick Femm I like this. No argument there. Great stuff!
I do, perhaps erroneously equate being elite and smug or as being synonymous as elites are always smug, but not all smug people are elite. Just going with the majority on that. I know its not correct but it is bordering on semantics (for me, at least) when arguing the difference between the two.
No argument over being well educated either. One caveat I have seen it with countless college freshmen who assume superior knowledge and unintentionally evoke elitist and smug attitudes because they were told their stances are correct by an instructor with the likened political bias without giving other explanations or reasoning. This is just as dangerous as those who assume as they are more “real” as you say by having less than stellar education and voting out of spite.
I did not mean that in the way you think with “I got mine, Jack!” I was just illustrating the nuances in perceptions of governance and how the theory and practice of certain things (such as implementing universal healthcare) do not necessarily result in the same outcomes either hypothetically or in actuality. In other words; People view the capacity of government different, and there is a difference between what each individual wants rather than segmenting everyone into groups and using the idea of Majority Rules. People want their individualism and to protect all aspects of it and some view healthcare as a more personal and individual thing rather than something that should be in government hands because it can cause government overreach/excessive taxation.
I’m just having a discourse here, no need to choke. Just sharing opinions and ideas.
Clearly a general failure in our edumacational methodology. We should be teaching children how to learn, not what they should know, and instill in them a sense that discovery of stuff should be seen as a stepping stone to the vastness of what is not yet known, not a place to stand and proudly plant a flag.
which, of course, is completely on-topic for OTRU and not at all a hijack
No, “arrogant and irrational” is asserting something that is not supported by evidence. UHC delivers better outcomes for pretty much the entire population at a significantly reduced per capita cost. Before the Tories started monkeying with it the NHS was delivering 14% better outcomes overall at roughly half the per capita cost. You know what else is arrogant and irrational? Arguing for a system that will cause you to pay twice as much just to be able to deny healthcare to poor people. That’s the argument many, many Republicans make. And you can mention “American exceptionalism” all you like, but it’s not an argument you can actually support.
If it helps, you can transfer your same argument to public schools. Why should some people have to pay to educate poor kids whose parents aren’t contributing the same amount to the tax base? Why should people without children have to pay for public schools? And the answer - for schools and healthcare alike - is that there is a wider societal benefit. An educated and healthy workforce not only benefits the workers, it also benefits the employers. Not having people locked into jobs because they can’t afford to lose their current employer-provided health insurance frees up movement of workers. A working class that is able to see a GP without fear of financial hardship will reduce the spread of disease as they can get treatment early on. Focusing on the short-term costs while ignoring the vast benefits results in false economy.
It was neither smug nor elitist to point out that a statement that basically says the Republicans are willing to help people as long as it doesn’t require anything of them is self-defeating.
A: I am not arguing for that, that is sensationalist nonsense. If you read above I am not against the idea. I am just stating an opinion that it is not feasible without people taking a considerable hit and potentially rupturing the economy.
B: American exceptionalism is quite obvious in many respects, and I only used it as a passing example of some inherent differences between the U.S. and other countries whom have established UHC.
C: Compare and contrast Capitalist vs Socialist economical foundations, the same application of Universal Health Care will not have the same outcome in both without considerable and potentially disastrous rapid change in one of them.
D: I said as long as it doesn’t hurt their bottom line ‘too much’ meaning excessive taxation. I did not say anything along the lines of “doesn’t require anything of them”.
If anything some small scale experiments with it within the American economy can at least provide a hypothesis on what will happen. You cannot apply the same rules from commonwealth countries’ economies to the American economy or accept that what worked for those countries will work here.
As for schools, that is a poor example. The economies of health care and public education are so vastly different, the same principles cannot be applied to both.
Just wanted to add and clarify: I would love for both healthcare and education to be at the forefront of American exceptionalism, if the application is feasible. Nothing would guarantee a stronger and dominant nation more than healthy bodies and minds. My concern as a Republican(Libertarian-leaning) is for the Country/Individuals. Nothing in between. It is all about treading carefully and conservatively while making change. It may seem counterintuitive to the other side but believe it or not I really want the best for the country. It’s just a different way of going about it.
You are actually arguing for that; you just don’t seem to realize it. And I’ve provided examples of several ways in which it would significantly stimulate the economy and have a major financial benefit to individuals.
We’re not talking “US vs Soviet Russia” comparisons here; we’re talking “US vs Canada or Great Britain”. UHC is not incompatible with a capitalist society, and countries with UHC do often run a two-tier system with private healthcare options for those who prefer them. The US is not economically exceptional; the main exception is the current far-right party in power who benefit from the status quo.
In what ways are they willing to help, then? Church bake sales? And evidence suggests that Republicans tend to view any taxation as “excessive”.
Why not? you keep asserting this, but there’s no reason why not. As for “small scale experiments”, the main benefit of UHC is the considerable economy of scale. You’d need to try it on at least a medium-sized state level to test it properly.
But the arguments against public healthcare frequently do apply to public education.
Sorry, everyone else - only on the Dope would a thread about trolls break into a discussion of healthcare.
I haven’t read that yet, but I did take a look, and I developed a hypothesis:
The poor man injured the pinkie fingers on both hands. This explains the fact that he puts so much coding into his posts. It’s physical therapy for those fingers.
You really should have said that that’s what you meant by “doesn’t hurt their bottom line too much.” Not doing so leaves it open to interpretation. And I submit that in the current political climate, the most reasonable interpretation, by an overwhelming margin, is:
On second thought, scratch that. It’s too wishy-washy, the way it suggests that I am offering a mere opinion, as opposed to stating an incontrovertible, non-debatable FACT. The third sentence should read:
*The most reasonable interpretation, by an overwhelming margin, is:
Yeah, this is Pointing And Laughing, if you want Civilized Debate you go way down the hall and around the corner and then upstairs and follow the breadcrumb trail until you find big oak doors. It’s in there.
