The Truth About Socialism

[glenn1]

Why do you think it works in other countries but will not work here?

It already failed here in Vermont. It's incumbent on you to show it can work, not me to prove it can't especially when you have a perfect 100% no success rate so far.

 

[dank69]

It already failed here in Vermont. It's incumbent on you to show it can work, not me to prove it can't especially when you have a perfect 100% no success rate so far.

Why did it fail in Vermont? Was it because a state is not the same thing as a country? Is it because you need a bit more than 625,000 people to make something like universal healthcare work?

 

[fskimospy]

So what you're saying is that you want a healthcare scheme that you'll get money (your money back?) if you "don't personally benefit from it" (whatever this bit in quotes means)?

I just want to establish that I have your position correctly before I try to respond from it.

This sure seems like a rational and not at all insane or petulant response to public policy!

We should probably implement that for all policies we want to implement where we individually test them every year and reimburse all those who don’t benefit. Now you’re probably thinking those compliance costs would be astronomical and you’re right, but that’s the standard!

Usually when glenn starts raging and making crazy demands like this it’s because he has run out of actual arguments and doesn’t want to admit it.

 

[glenn1]

So what you're saying is that you want a healthcare scheme that you'll get money (your money back?) if you "don't personally benefit from it" (whatever this bit in quotes means)?

I just want to establish that I have your position correctly before I try to respond from it.

The question I was asked was why I wouldn't support it since "I would personally benefit." I'm disputing the claim that I would benefit and offering an opportunity (insurance if you will) for your side to guarantee I would benefit. My position is that not only would I not benefit but that I'd be personally worse off because I'd be paying for the "free care" for others.

 

[fskimospy]

It already failed here in Vermont. It's incumbent on you to show it can work, not me to prove it can't especially when you have a perfect 100% no success rate so far.

We have a 100% or near 100% rate on a country level, which is what his plan would be. States are not countries or anything close to them so this comparison is invalid.

If you want to make the case that the US is a magical and special case then make it.

 

[glenn1]

Why did it fail in Vermont? Was it because a state is not the same thing as a country? Is it because you need a bit more than 625,000 people to make something like universal healthcare work?

Iceland has half that population and universal healthcare, try again. It fails here at the state level because liberals want the benefit but someone else besides them to pay for it. At the single state level you can't pawn the costs onto a red state person thus you're not interested.

We have a 100% or near 100% rate on a country level, which is what his plan would be. States are not countries or anything close to them so this comparison is invalid.

If you want to make the case that the US is a magical and special case then make it.

It worked at the state level for other social policies like same-sex marriage and MJ legalization, so why is healthcare different?

 

[realibrad]

Then what was your point? That strong correlation doesn't get us to 100% certainty about causation? If you had just said that, there would be no argument here.

I in fact said the following...

Indicator, sure. Its reasonable to think that. To say conclusively disproven however is false. History does not have that power logically.

This has gone on for a while now, but, it was posted 2 posts before you first posted to me.

So, we have me saying his argument is not sound as its correlation not causation. Correct.

Using an example of how absurd it would be if it were logical, aka rape example. Correct.

Also realize, I never said or took any stance on anything other than the invalid argument he used. People may know my position, but I never took one because it was not my goal. I did not call him names, or try to insult him in any way. I just pointed out that his position would mean any component of a larger system would also have to follow the same rule. Rape being one component of a larger system (society) is bad. I used it not to be hyperbolic, but because I figured we all agree rape is bad and it should show that you cant make the argument being made.

As I said, I have had multiple people look over what was said in this forum, and, while they thought it was weird that I did this, they agreed with my position universally. That is not proof that I am right, but its a good indicator.

 

[dank69]

Iceland has half that population and universal healthcare, try again. It fails here at the state level because liberals want the benefit but someone else besides them to pay for it. At the single state level you can't pawn the costs onto a red state person thus you're not interested.

I think it is much more complicated than that. For example, what happens when someone from Vermont is out of state? Do they need to purchase health insurance every time they leave the state? Did Vermont cover visitors from other states?

 

[fskimospy]

Iceland has half that population and universal healthcare, try again. It fails here at the state level because liberals want the benefit but someone else besides them to pay for it. At the single state level you can't pawn the costs onto a red state person thus you're not interested.

Silly glenn, blue states pay for the costs of red states, not the other way around. Individual US states are not comparable to other countries and you know this. Stop making dumb comparisons.

Again, please let us know why the US is unique among all developed nations in which a universal plan would not be effective.

 

[glenn1]

I think it is much more complicated than that. For example, what happens when someone from Vermont is out of state? Do they need to purchase health insurance every time they leave the state? Did Vermont cover visitors from other states?

So blue state liberals aren't smart enough to figure out details like that? Come on, you're better than that. It failed because Vermonters didn't want to pay the taxes needed to make it work. If the most liberal state in the nation couldn't stomach the plan then how do you expect the rest of us to?

Silly glenn, blue states pay for the costs of red states, not the other way around. Individual US states are not comparable to other countries and you know this. Stop making dumb comparisons.

Again, please let us know why the US is unique among all developed nations in which a universal plan would not be effective.

Then why are you letting the deadbeat red states hold you back from UHC in your state. Put your money where your mouth is and create your own state plan, show the rest of us how great it works and let us demand it in our own states.

 

[mikeymikec]

The question I was asked was why I wouldn't support it since "I would personally benefit." I'm disputing the claim that I would benefit and offering an opportunity (insurance if you will) for your side to guarantee I would benefit. My position is that not only would I not benefit but that I'd be personally worse off because I'd be paying for the "free care" for others.

So you intentionally did not answer the question, and put up an intentionally absurd scenario that no healthcare provider in the world would agree to because under EVERY HEALTHCARE PLAN YOU ARE HELPING PAY FOR OTHERS' HEALTHCARE, and under some (private ones), you are also helping line the pockets of the rich.

If you simply paid for your healthcare, you would not need a healthcare plan. You would go to a medical establishment, get treated and presented with a bill that you pay for out of your own pocket.

 

[glenn1]

So you intentionally did not answer the question, and put up an intentionally absurd scenario that no healthcare provider in the world would agree to because under EVERY HEALTHCARE PLAN YOU ARE HELPING PAY FOR OTHERS' HEALTHCARE, and under some (private ones), you are also helping line the pockets of the rich.

If you simply paid for your healthcare, you would not need a healthcare plan. You would go to a medical establishment, get treated and presented with a bill that you pay for out of your own pocket.

I was asked a question with an unsupported premise, namely:

You would personally benefit from universal healthcare. So why don't you support it?

I'm disputing the premise, indeed counter with my own premise that not only would I not personally benefit but I'd be worse off. Prove me wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

I in fact said the following...

This has gone on for a while now, but, it was posted 2 posts before you first posted to me.

So, we have me saying his argument is not sound as its correlation not causation. Correct.

Using an example of how absurd it would be if it were logical, aka rape example. Correct.

Also realize, I never said or took any stance on anything other than the invalid argument he used. People may know my position, but I never took one because it was not my goal. I did not call him names, or try to insult him in any way. I just pointed out that his position would mean any component of a larger system would also have to follow the same rule. Rape being one component of a larger system (society) is bad. I used it not to be hyperbolic, but because I figured we all agree rape is bad and it should show that you cant make the argument being made.

As I said, I have had multiple people look over what was said in this forum, and, while they thought it was weird that I did this, they agreed with my position universally. That is not proof that I am right, but its a good indicator.

I never once said correlation meant causation and considering I’m quite confident you know I don’t believe that from other conversations it would be irrational for you to assume I suddenly changed my mind. More importantly, that’s why I used the term ‘likely’ in the post you responded to with the rape analogy.

This attempt to retroactively change your point is shameful and dishonest, as are your repeated attempts to change mine. Not that you should need to care about this but your behavior in this thread has made me reconsider attempting to discuss things rationally with you in the future. If you can’t admit to screwing up something this blatant I can’t imagine any circumstance where you would.

 

[dank69]

I was asked a question with an unsupported premise, namely:



I'm disputing the premise, indeed counter with my own premise that not only would I personally benefit but I'd be worse off. Prove me wrong.

But you have no evidence to support your premise while we have almost all the other first-world countries supporting ours.

 

[fskimospy]

I was asked a question with an unsupported premise, namely:

I'm disputing the premise, indeed counter with my own premise that not only would I not personally benefit but I'd be worse off. Prove me wrong.

Oh good, so you’ve retreated to an unanswerable standard on an Internet forum.

Sigh.

 

[mikeymikec]

I was asked a question with an unsupported premise, namely:

I'm disputing the premise, indeed counter with my own premise that not only would I personally benefit but I'd be worse off. Prove me wrong.

I like the way you ignored everything else I said. Whether or not the premise is unsupported, it's still an answerable question.

What would "proving you wrong" entail? How much are you paying for your healthcare at the moment?

 

[fskimospy]

I like the way you ignored everything else I said.

What would "proving you wrong" entail? How much are you paying for your healthcare at the moment?

Yeah we are going to need glenn’s personal income details, health history, summary of benefits for his current provider, and family health history to start.

Pony up, glenn!

 

[dank69]

So blue state liberals aren't smart enough to figure out details like that? Come on, you're better than that. It failed because Vermonters didn't want to pay the taxes needed to make it work. If the most liberal state in the nation couldn't stomach the plan then how do you expect the rest of us to?

From what I have read it doesn't look like Vermonters were ever given the choice. The framework was passed without funding. When they started running the funding numbers, they decided the people would balk at the tax increase even though their private spending would likely decrease to compensate.

 

[glenn1]

But you have no evidence to support your premise while we have almost all the other first-world countries supporting ours.

I have access to timely and best quality care now so there's no plausible way you could say I would "personally benefit" from UHC; you must be confusing me with one of the poors you want to give healthcare to (paid for by folks like me). Since healthcare is a rivalrous good then by definition it's impossible for me to directly benefit from someone else's care (with rare exceptions like vaccination which I support because of the positive externalities). I'm already getting all the healthcare I want so UHC wouldn't allow me to increase my consumption. Indeed others having increased access would directly cost me in multiple ways (the costs I'd assume to pay for their care, more competition and time waiting to get the care I want, probable lower quality, etc) thus it would make me worse off. You are demonstrating the common liberal problem of desiring some social welfare outcome (like "greater access" or whatever) and arguing (wrongly) that's a direct personal benefit to me.

 

[fskimospy]

I have access to timely and best quality care now so there's no plausible way you could say I would "personally benefit" from UHC; you must be confusing me with one of the poors you want to give healthcare to (paid for by folks like me). Since healthcare is a rivalrous good then by definition it's impossible for me to directly benefit from someone else's care (with rare exceptions like vaccination which I support because of the positive externalities). I'm already getting all the healthcare I want so UHC wouldn't allow me to increase my consumption. Indeed others having increased access would directly cost me in multiple ways (the costs I'd assume to pay for their care, more competition and time waiting to get the care I want, probable lower quality, etc) thus it would make me worse off. You are demonstrating the common liberal problem of desiring some social welfare outcome (like "greater access" or whatever) and arguing (wrongly) that's a direct personal benefit to me.

You asked us to prove you wrong so you’re going to need to supply your health information so we can do so. If you’re unwilling to do this then admit you deliberately set an unreachable standard in order to shut down a debate you were losing.

 

[glenn1]

You asked us to prove you wrong so you’re going to need to supply your health information so we can do so. If you’re unwilling to do this then admit you deliberately set an unreachable standard in order to shut down a debate you were losing.

When you make an assertion it’s your obligation to defend it, not mine to prove my disagreement to it. Again, I wouldn’t be gaining new coverage and “per capita average” is irrelevant to my personal spend; therefore explain again how I will absolutlely “personally benefit.” I’ve already explained several ways how I’d be adversely impacted.

 

[fskimospy]

When you make an assertion it’s your obligation to defend it, not mine to prove my disagreement to it. Again, I wouldn’t be gaining new coverage and “per capita average” is irrelevant to my personal spend; therefore explain again how I will absolutlely “personally benefit.” I’ve already explained several ways how I’d be adversely impacted.

You instructed us to prove you wrong. In order to do so we require information about your personal circumstances as otherwise the question is unanswerable. If you're unwilling to provide the necessary information to meet your demand then just say so.

 

[Jaskalas]

Vaccination helps prevent contagious diseases from spreading. Cancer and such aren’t contagious and refusing to implement state-based universal healthcare or private charity only prevents liberals’ wallets from being opened.

Yeah, you and no one you care about will ever get sick. Is your secret that you don't care about anyone?

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, you and no one you care about will ever get sick. Is your secret that you don't care about anyone?

Actually, things like HPV are known to cause cancer, and HPV is contagious. If I remember correctly, there are many things like HPV that cause cancer.

 

[Thebobo]

I heard trump is changing the federal designation of Liberal Leave (LL) to Make America great again leave (MAGAL).