Redstate

Liberal ideology is based on hope

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"Conservative ideology is fact based (history and human nature)"
"Liberal ideology is based on hope"

I'm pretty sure if you just keep repeating that over and over and over and over and over...forever, you will solve the world's problems.

I think I'll look for another approach.

all emotion. i was a lib for 20 yrs. I know.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Apparently, you missed my point, but by all means, if they entertain you, keep up the non sequiturs.

For the record, your characterizations of both "ideologies" are too simplistic to be taken seriously. Sloganeering is not thinking. (Hmmm, I think that sounds suspiciously like a slogan.)

I'm sorry it took you two decades to see the error of your ways.
You have my sympathy. Twenty years responding to everything emotionally--you must be exhausted.

And that was today's useless language nitpick, heh.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

If Canada increased its per capita expenditures to equal those of the US, many of the "problems" of their system just might disappear.

The question, my dear elmidd, is; why don't they? Since it's that simple, why don't the Canadian, British, French, etc. governments simply raise the amount they spend per capita on healthcare?

You're right in a way. Health care systems are about choices. But when it comes down to it the choices are medical and economical, not at all ideological. Although you Lefties seem to be perfectly fine with horrible healthcare so long as it's "universal" - if the fawning over Cuban healthcare is any indication.

Either way, Canada, which leans far more to the Left than the United States, rations care simply because it does not have the money to run it. Try as you might to rescue the Lefty dream of socialized medicine, I doubt anyone would think it's a good idea to sacrifice a nation's economy for "free" healthcare.

Now, could the American system be improved? I'm certain it can. But handing everything (or anything other than the bare minimum of regulations) over to the Government is not the answer. At all.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Sadly, you appear to be better at name calling (based on ill-directed suppositions), than offering substantive argument.

However, I will offer this: you'd probably benefit from a far wider ranging reading agenda than you apparently now enjoy, since your post exhibits little beyond canned talking points based on "facts" I suspect are found largely in your imagination.

"You're right in a way. Health care systems are about choices. But when it comes down to it the choices are medical and economical, not at all ideological. Although you Lefties seem to be perfectly fine with horrible healthcare so long as it's "universal" - if the fawning over Cuban healthcare is any indication."

This is one of the funniest paragraphs I’ve read in a long time. Not ideological? I guess that's why you waited all the way to the third sentence of this paragraph to start calling names (hey, it's easier than a lot of the alternatives) and attributing nebulous horrors to "Lefties"--nothing ideological about that.

...Try as you might to rescue the Lefty dream of socialized medicine, I doubt anyone would think it's a good idea to sacrifice a nation's economy for "free" healthcare.

I missed the part where I called for socialized medicine or mentioned anything about “free” healthcare. You need to work on that knee-jerk--it could be dangerous. Apparently, you've decided (no surprise here) that the US must "sacrifice" its economy for universal care. I guess you've failed to notice that with our utterly outdated (and, in my opinion, long, if not always, ill-advised) system of employment-based health care, we've been "sacrificing" our economy for decades. (Talk about an inefficient system; especially as people change jobs more and more frequently.) Not to mention that fact that our health care costs are vastly increased by having so many people uninsured, not receiving preventive care, and ultimately ending up being treated at far greater expense for advanced conditions.

Now, could the American system be improved? I'm certain it can.

What do you think is wrong with our system? And how would you improve it? I know what you're against; what are you for, and how would you achieve it?

But handing everything (or anything other than the bare minimum of regulations) over to the Government is not the answer. At all.

Really? And exactly how do you know that? You certainly haven't offered anything to substantiate that claim, which sounds suspiciously ideological, something you previously ruled out of health care choices. To argue that health care choices are medical and economical [sic], but not ideological, and then to offer nothing but ideology-based opinions is cute, but not convincing.

I suggest you google something like "medicare versus private insurance" and start reading.

What if, my dear MartinAKnight, it turned out that a single-payer health care system provided better overall care, lower overall expenses, and a more satisfied and healthier public? Would you still oppose it? And wouldn't your opposition then be purely ideological?

Like a growing number of Americans, I imagine you'll change your attitude if and when you or a loved one loses or is denied insurance, can't afford what may be available, or faces financial ruin because of serious illness. Maybe not. Perhaps, your certainty is so great that you'll march proudly to your end still more worried about Cuba--I certainly didn't fawn over Cuban health care--than you are about living.

One last thing. Someone who disagrees with you or doesn't follow a rigid set of prescribed beliefs is not automatically a "lefty." I visit a number of web sites across the political spectrum (at Red State the range of political opinion is among the most limited--and, unfortunately, name calling and ad hominem attack far too common). There are conservatives today who want the president impeached and removed from office (for an amazingly wide array of charges) and liberals who want to fight in Iraq forever, if necessary, because the danger of losing there is so great. I agree and disagree with opinions I encounter on virtually every site. Funny though, I try not to waste my time or anyone else's by calling someone a "lefty," a "right-winger," or any other name.

I notice that you failed to make a case that economics had nothing to do with healthcare in all that crowing.

What if, my dear MartinAKnight, it turned out that a single-payer health care system provided better overall care, lower overall expenses, and a more satisfied and healthier public?

Excellent my dear elmidd ... except that a whole bunch of countries have tried it out and are posting up results that only fudging the numbers make them look good as compared to the US i.e. not counting premature births as live births, including homicide victims in life expectancy numbers, not accounting for Americans' higher propensity towards obesity, etc.

You state that if Canada, Britain, France, etc. were to raise their spending per capita then they would not have the myriad of problems they're suffering now i.e. low quality care, lack of nurses and doctors, lack of resources, terminally long waiting times, etc.

Again, I ask you, why don't they? Certainly, ideology is not the reason why they don't. So if it's as simple as that, why don't they? It's the subject of my response to you and it's really not an ideological question.

But of course, you avoided that and went on with your little tirade about how far above ideology you are because you read across the spectrum. Well ... I guess that's okay. Then of course, you tell me you are not for socialized medicine (AKA "free" healthcare AKA handing over everything to the Government) and then go about demanding that I prove that that's not a better idea than the current system - which is suspiciously like you trying to have it both ways.

It's kind of cowardly - advocating something but at a distance so that you can say you were not really doing so when it crashes into some opposition.

Answer the question. If it's so simple and their systems so great, why don't Canada, France, Britain, et al simply raise their healthcare spending per capita until all those waiting times, the lack of doctors and nurses and hospital beds and equipment disappear?

PS: Redstate has had quite a few discussions on healthcare. From creating association plans independent of a job, allowing people to buy across state lines, even getting the government involved in some way. If you missed out on them it's not my problem.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Again, I ask you, why don't they? Certainly, ideology is not the reason why they don't. So if it's as simple as that, why don't they? It's the subject of my response to you and it's really not an ideological question....

Answer the question. If it's so simple and their systems so great, why don't Canada, France, Britain, et al simply raise their healthcare spending per capita until all those waiting times, the lack of doctors and nurses and hospital beds and equipment disappear?

Simple. I didn't tell you why they don't do it, because I'm not Canadian (or French or British or...). It isn't my place to speculate about Canadian or British programmatic choices and rationales. I haven't asked them, so, I can't pretend to know the answer or speak for them. You'll have to ask them yourself. Frankly, I don't care why they haven't. Neither do I think their failures have to be our failures, or their justifications ours. I believe we could do it better than they do, especially since we seem to have so much more money with which to address the problem. We're already spending the money, why not use it more efficiently?

PS: Redstate has had quite a few discussions on healthcare. From creating association plans independent of a job, allowing people to buy across state lines, even getting the government involved in some way. If you missed out on them it's not my problem.

It must be Black Pot time. I didn't ask you about Red State discussions, did I? I asked you what you think is wrong with US health care and how you would fix it.
And I won't even waste your time by calling you "cowardly" for avoiding my question. Sincerely yours, Kettle

Then of course, you tell me you are not for socialized medicine (AKA "free" healthcare AKA handing over everything to the Government)...

I didn't use the term "socialized medicine" for two reasons. First, the system I would envision would not be socialized medicine, because it would be a hybrid system which would include a variety of mechanisms and approaches. Second, I didn't use the term, because I guessed that anyone who keeps writing about "free" health care and "handing over everything to the Government" (neither of which I would foresee nor recommend) isn't likely to be able to discuss health care rationally if he thinks "socialized medicine" is on the table (or even lurking somewhere outside in the dark).

I have to leave now, so the soapbox is all yours.

Simple. I didn't tell you why they don't do it, because I'm not Canadian (or French or British or...). It isn't my place to speculate about Canadian or British programmatic choices and rationales ...

Ahh ... you're punting. Well, I can't say I'm surprised.

I didn't ask you about Red State discussions, did I? I asked you what you think is wrong with US health care and how you would fix it.

Dear Kettle, You're not worth me repeating myself. There's a search button up top. Use it. Sincerely Yours, Pot.

First, the system I would envision would not be socialized medicine, because it would be a hybrid system which would include a variety of mechanisms and approaches.

Good. Expansiate. You may not convince me but others are reading this and you might pull them in your direction. What? Oh ...

I have to leave now, so the soapbox is all yours.

Oh well ... Can't say I'm surprised. Didn't think you had much beyond bravado and posing anyway.

Auf weidersehen!

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Or rather, not correct ... y.

Although your style is obviously designed to give the appearance of being delivered by an intellectual heavyweight, it seems basic instruction is in order.

"(at Red State the range of political opinion is among the most limited--and, unfortunately, name calling and ad hominem attack far too common)"

While perhaps being defined or categorized as a lefty can be seen as simply base name-calling, it certainly does not rise to the level of an ad hominem attack. The phrase is so abused and overused it is fast coming to mean nothing more than an insult.

It is not enough to say "what you said is incorrect, you lefty". You have to say "what you said is incorrect, which is proved by virtue of your being a lefty". The latter is an ad hominem fallacy. The former is merely an insult or, in some cases, a factual observation.

absentee

While perhaps being defined or categorized as a lefty can be seen as simply base name-calling, it certainly does not rise to the level of an ad hominem attack. The phrase is so abused and overused it is fast coming to mean nothing more than an insult.

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed.):
Main Entry: 1 ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

I'd say that the way "lefty" is often (normally?) used on RedState definitely qualifies in both senses--1 and 2). It is used to disqualify an argument (or opinion) without addressing the argument. Worse still, the term is too often used as a form of attack when someone doesn't like the other person's argument, even though the "perp" has no real knowledge of the other's politics and/or ideology.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I think such attacks are limited to the use of "lefty." Words like "idiot" are also regularly substituted for substantive argument, as are any number of other insults and attacks--traitor, coward, etc.

Perhaps, you can give me some more invaluable basic instruction, and explain why argument by insult (whether or not strictly qualifying--in your mind--as ad hominem) seems to be so common in these parts and why it is ever appropriate.

you'd "say that the way 'lefty' is often (normally?) used on RedState definitely qualifies in both senses--1 and 2). It is used to disqualify an argument (or opinion) without addressing the argument."

... but you wouldn't be right. I'd say that crying 'ad hominem' every time one's feelings were owwied, however, often is an attempt to disqualify an argument or opinion without addressing an argument. And still it remains the case that a mere insult isn't the ad hominem you wish it to be. I'm certain, in a general sense (having no experience in being thus named), that being called lefty is unpleasant. It's possible one feels marginalized by such a term. But if one's point is being addressed and they are then called a lefty, all I can say is, toughen up lefty. It's not an ad hominem. I wonder if I could say it again. A mere insult is not an ad hominem. Even by the loose definition you've selected above, where the word rather is, well, rather crucial. You know, as opposed to in addition to.

Further, you have co-opted my original point as if it were your own, then try to divorce me from it: "whether or not strictly qualifying--in your mind--as ad hominem". Insult as argument is precisely what I termed ad hominem. That's the exact distinction I am pointing out to you in the first place. You simply restate what I already stated and then claim I disagree with what I said. It is conniving, and it is definitely lefty.

But rather than belabor this lefty point, lets see if I can try and answer your other question. In addition to the basic instruction, of course.

As to the third part, my personal feelings are the term is appropriate in as much as it is a pointy finger. Lefties are the enemy in many ways, on many counts. Pointing at them and saying so, while not nice, isn't inappropriate as far as I am concerned. Perhaps not appropriate per se, but not inappropriate. Of course, I speak for no one but myself.

For the second part, I frankly don't think it's as frequent as you would have us believe it is.

As for the first part, you are simply continuing your previous confusion. You can't seem to separate argument BY insult from argument plus insult. It's a topping, not the oven setting, if I may make an indistinct analogy.

You keep wanting it to be an ad hominem. It's just an insult. I do think you'll just have to get used to that fact.

absentee

I think that someone should point this out to you that being self-insured, or uninsured has a significant voluntary component.

P.S. I am self-insured by my own choice

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

My wife and I are self-insured by choice, and we have two children. Wonder where we are statistically speaking.

absentee

I am not sure what you want. You have made several leftist assumptions in your comments today. The use of the word leftist appears to be accurate description of your position. Why does it irk you so?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

If Canada increased its per capita expenditures to equal those of the US, many of the "problems" of their system just might disappear.

We have not reached US levels of resourcing yet, but we have learnt that huge increases in expenditure in a government run system do not lead to increases in healthcare - most is dissipated in increased staff costs - mostly payrises for existing staff, rather than extra people.

In any system with infinite demand, or any other form of scarcity, you need to have some form of rationing. You can ration by queuing or by price, but one way or another you have to ration

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

We have not reached US levels of resourcing yet, but we have learnt that huge increases in expenditure in a government run system do not lead to increases in healthcare - most is dissipated in increased staff costs - mostly payrises for existing staff, rather than extra people.

Just because that is what a country chooses to spend additional funds on does not mean it is what the country had to spend the money on. I wouldn't expect the American system to mimic any other system. I'd expect it to take the best from others, add innovative ideas of its own, and build a system that is better than those in other countries. Otherwise, why bother?

In any system with infinite demand, or any other form of scarcity, you need to have some form of rationing. You can ration by queuing or by price, but one way or another you have to ration.

I won't argue about that. I just find our current rationing choices to be inefficient, counterproductive, and very costly (in both financial and human terms).

If there were no vote motive; if unions did not own a political party in most countries; if it wasn't a simple economic exchange for a union to get a candidate elected so that that candidate could funnel money back to the union; if there was no such thing as regulatory capture; if government run systems were perfectly efficient; and if the the moon were made of blue cheese (which is so much nicer than green), you would would right. Extra funds would always go to patients.

But there would still be infinite demand.

And there would still be rationing. There is a lot that is wrong with America's healthcare system, but try joining a waiting list that doesn't get you treatment but gets you put on another waiting list. See how you like that. We have targets, you see, for reducing waiting times. No-one is supposed to wait a year for treatment, just six months. So now you get a letter saying you will go on the waiting list in six months time, and then you can wait six months. So much better than waiting a year, I am sure you will agree.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I know there is a perceived "problem" with heath care/health insurance. But what makes that a Federal problem? As a reminder:

Amendment 10 of the Constitution of the United States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me where providing for (either directly or indirectly) for the medical care of residents of the United States can be justified in the Constitution and THEN we can start talking about what form it should take.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

... to our complaint dept here: The Complaint Department

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

It is an important distinction, and the point needs to be made.

Every time the Democrats/MSM claim there are millions without healthcare, they are lying.

Everyone has access to emergency care and there are alternatives to commercial hospitals and doctors. All of this was swept away in the UK when healthcare was nationalised.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of