Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilante
"Of the type"? I'm in Texas, in case you forgot. I don't have to watch Fox to have conservative influence. I don't talk to anyone about Fox, or about what Fox talks about. I don't read a newspaper (any paper) or watch any news. Seriously. none. If I see it on my google homepage, I see the title, realize that the title was basically a summary of the story anyways, and move on. I spend very little time on details of a topic for which I have no control and very little concern. I'm almost a blank slate, except for general society around me and its influences.
|
I'm only going by what you post. You're a Second Amendment proponent, you're strongly in favor of individual rights, you follow the bootstraps philosophy, you feel "anything from the government is shitty" and when you feel cornered, you make personal attacks. These views strongly correspond with the professional politics of the right. If you're asking us to believe this is a coincidence, we'll have to simply agree to disagree on the point and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilante
And you are objective? Is this a case of I'm right and everyone else is wrong unless they agree with me? I'd like to see that one hold up in general discussion. LOL
|
This isn't a proper way to debate. Either present evidence or refute either my evidence or my conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilante
What evidence? I'm still waiting for some information from you that shows the benefits of social healthcare.
|
All you had to do was ask:
First off, small businesses and individuals are having serious trouble affording private medical insurance right now, so much so (as I stated above) that it's the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US causing about 1.5-2 million a year. This puts a substantial strain on our economy that would be lifted under the reduced overall costs of a public option. For evidence of this, we can look to every other industrialized country in the world, all of whom have a public option. Per capita costs for health care in places like France, Canada, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Japan are less than half the per capita costs of the US. In other words, they all pay substantially less in taxes than we pay in insurance.
Second, people living under public health care systems aren't turned down for profit, as the public option is not for profit. If you're ill in any way, you're treated. As much as the right is scared of the big bad R-word (rationing), the fact is that it's actually quite rare even in Canada. We have some friendly canucks right here on TFP that can personally attest to the effectiveness of their system vs. our for-profit system.
Third, this isn't socalized medicine. Just like in Canada, it's simply a doctor running a private practice that happens to be insured by the government instead of a private insurer. It's more similar to Medicare than NHS.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, you get to cover everyone. No more will people have to choose between paying $400 a month or running the risk of having to pay a $12,000 medical bill for an accident.
There's a lot more, but I figure this is enough to digest for the time being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilante
This isn't a debate class. This is pub discussion. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...iscussion.html
You've already broken one rule, and still have yet to give some meaningful benefits that I requested, fairly, for consideration. I'm serious, I have read basically nothing on the bill, and I'm curious. If you don't mind me asking, quit beating around the bush and provide something interesting 
It's not like you have to quote it (you technically can't anyways), just mention something that seems to stand out as good. |
The reason debate class worked so well is that it kept people on point and it prevented people from using fallacious arguments.