Page 21 of 231 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171121 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 3464
Like Tree49Likes

Thread: The American Politics thread

  1. #301
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    And I have answered based on that conversation. One must understand the context of Paul's answers because his ideology, coupled with the general public's ignorance of it, is poor for soundbites.

    Paul advocates a system of government and economic policy which he understands lowers the cost of care. In his time, these conditions existed and the cost of care was far lower. Ironically, as Friedman also notes many times in his speeches, the periods in American history where there was most freedom and booms in the economy were the times where people were the most charitable.

    Back then, hospitals were run by Churches and the cost of care was relatively cheap. Even private care really wasn't that expensive. When he answers, he is referring to his policies to hopefully get back to that stage.

    Also, his plans on medicare/medicaid and health care in general are far more complex than that. You should really take a look at his site or other articles where his plans are delved into far greater.
    That was a debate, he was speaking in front of the nation where he could say and frankly if that is his answer in front of the national audience, I have no reason to go anywhere else to know what else he has to offer as his health care plan

  2. #302
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Yes, but 'society' can mean more than one thing - a group with legal power or a group without legal power. He'll argue against that it should be mandated by law for people to do something; even though he would promote the act of it being done voluntarily.

    You might tell someone it is good to diet for their health; but you might consider it outside the bounds of legal responsibility to mandate that they have to eat help.

    The mandate restricts the liberty of the individual, the voluntary act doesn't.
    I do not think you get the point. By law the Hospitals can not refuse treatment to a person (EMTALA signed into a law by Regan), so obviously those individuals would walk away with free treatment every time there is an emergency. So it is a burden passed on by the Hospitals directly to those of us who have health insurance coverage.

    The mandate does not restrict liberty of the individual, it creates a law that forces an individual to assume their responsibility towards their personal health care and make sure that the individual liberties of rest of us are not burdened by the uninsured individuals liberty.

    You can vote for who you want, although I don't think you understand his position well. When people question what used to happen when medical care was less regulated/subsidised, he is drawing on what happened in the past. If you want universal health-care then you shouldn't vote for Paul.

    For me though, such a social program is bound to fail and go bankrupt as well as bankrupt the country.
    I do not care what you call it, universal health care, obamacare or whatever. I just do not want to be the neighbor Mr. Paul wants me to be. I want my neighbor(s) to be responsible for his/their healthcare.

  3. #303
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    Even if that is the case, i don't see what is wrong with it?

    Each state and it's people can decide for itself, which means more localized power to the people on this issue which can possibly be divisive.
    And possibly, it could also mean as per the guidelines worked out, one can go and have a abortion in another state if they have too.
    But then it is not the liberty that Mr. Paul is advocating, is it ? And the crime of abortion was committed anyway, was it not ?

    I mean does it really matter if you are murdered in Texas or in Alabama ?

  4. #304
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Well that's only sort of true. While a single fact will not disprove a theory that is able to make many many predictions, it depends on the type of fact. The reason ad-hoc explanations were offered because Newtonian mechanics still explained a hell of a lot, and more importantly, there was no other theory that explained everything Newton's did plus the new fact. That latter is key. A discovery of a new process or a fact does not invalidate the facts which are explained by the previous theory - that theory is still sufficient to explain all the facts it previously did, and unless someone can do a better job of explaining those facts, it makes no sense to abandon a theory that yields useful results.

    As an example, it would be like as soon as a single fact was found that contradicted Newtonian mechanics, you would stop engineering buildings or machines that relied on calculations derived from Newtonian mechanics....that approach wouldn't really make any sense.
    Of course, I'm not saying that it was irrational to protect a successful theory with ad-hoc hypotheses. Sometimes such an ad-hoc hypothesis even leads to the discovery of novel facts. The discrepancy of Uranus' path from that predicted by Newtonian mech. led to the ad-hoc postulation of an undiscovered new planet. This actually led to the discovery of Neptune. But the point is that the history of science tells us that anomalies do not necessarily lead to theories being dropped.

    However, and this is both field and theory dependent, it is possible for a single fact to disprove a hypothesis depending on how central to the theory it is.
    It is possible for say, an experiment, to result in a hypothesis being dropped from a theory. But there is no logical compulsion for that to happen. One of the reasons why this is so is that there is no such thing as a pure 'fact' independent of theory. Accepting a 'fact' (say a experimental result) implies accepting several background hypothesis/theories. By questioning any one of these background hypotheses the 'fact' can be questioned. For example several theories are involved in accepting a particular interpretation of an 'experimental fact'. Any of these theories can be questioned to deny the 'fact'. This is what happened in the history of science as well. Another way in which a theory can be saved is by proposing ad-hoc hypothesis as I mentioned above.

    If the numbe of ad-hoc modifications needed to save a theory grows too much without any 'benefits' people begin to stop backing such a theory slowly moving onto a better one. But there is no logical compulsion which would force one give up a theory. The distinction is not between 'false theories' and 'proven theories'. It is between progressive research programs and degenerating research programs (This is the alternate model provided by Lakatos. There could be other models).


  5. #305
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    He's right, it isn't in the sense that it has to be Federally funded. LOL @ the constitution being a joke. Well, it's no wonder you're at odds with his philosophies. You don't care about the most important legal document in your country.
    I didn't call constitution a joke, but the fact that "Education isn't a fundamental constitutional right" is a joke.
    Last edited by Sanz; 17-11-2011 at 04:36 PM.

  6. #306
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    32,104
    Unless the a standard of quality/extent/level of education can be defined, it seems to me incredibly obvious why it isn't a constitutional right.

  7. #307
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Unless the a standard of quality/extent/level of education can be defined, it seems to me incredibly obvious why it isn't a constitutional right.
    Well that's the point, even after 200+ years we still have not been able to determine what is the basic minimum education a child must get.

  8. #308
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    I am not sure where this part relates to but I'll answer anyway because it is a good point. Not all things done by doctors require the expertise of someone with that level of education. Friedman expounds on this well. Milton Friedman - Health Care in a Free Market - YouTube - especially pay attention to question raised around 1:40.

    Such a scheme would undoubtedly lower costs - more competition, lesser skills required.
    If you had a choice, between a drug that is approved by FDA or one that is rejected by FDA, which one would you prefer ?

  9. #309
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    In that sense, I am ok with it. If someone can call me insane for not believing in an imaginary holy being; then I am cool with you saying Paul is bat**** crazy for believing in individual liberty. It says more about the people in the majority in these cases IMO.
    No, if someone call you insane for not believing in "Imaginary Holy Being", it doesn't harm anyone. It may offend you and/or others but merely calling you insane will not harm you.But abolishing the DMV and allowing everyone to drive without license, while protecting their liberty, does endanger the public and their liberty to live their life the way they want to.

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ro...nd-reddit-com/

    Ron Paul does not believe in evolution, does not believe that the Global Warming is a threat. Hel cites extreme examples or anecdotes for his propaganda, rarely offers any real solution to the any problem. He consistently votes against federal funding for anything including disasters like Katrina, yet represents a congressional district that is among the highest federal grant receiver in the country.
    Last edited by Sanz; 17-11-2011 at 07:44 PM.

  10. #310
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    If you had a choice, between a drug that is approved by FDA or one that is rejected by FDA, which one would you prefer ?
    I would prefer the FDA did not exist and drugs were regulated by the markets. You do not need the FDA and it has caused plenty of harm and probably prevented many good medicines. See that video I posted for Manan. Or this one: Milton Friedman - Government Regulation - YouTube

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    No, if someone call you insane for not believing in "Imaginary Holy Being", it doesn't harm anyone. It may offend you and/or others but merely calling you insane will not harm you.But abolishing the DMV and allowing everyone to drive without license, while protecting their liberty, does endanger the public and their liberty to live their life the way they want to.

    Ron Paul and reddit.com
    Bolded: what is your point?

    Licensure =/= safeguard - see that video, again. People do not drive safely because they have a piece of plastic in their pocket. They have acquired skills to avoid crashes. To avoid death (theirs and others) and to avoid being liable for damage.

    Ron Paul does not believe in evolution, does not believe that the Global Warming is a threat. Hel cites extreme examples or anecdotes for his propaganda, rarely offers any real solution to the any problem. He consistently votes against federal funding for anything including disasters like Katrina, yet represents a congressional district that is among the highest federal grant receiver in the country.
    I disagree with Paul on evolution because he seems to have this mistaken belief that the theory of evolution is somehow still in the air. Much like his views on Global Warming although I think that is a more legitimate debate. Regardless, I am not worried. Paul is not for legislating his beliefs; that's what is appealing about him. If I were American, those issues would also be the least of my worries: I'd be more worried about the wars and the federal reserve/economy.

    Where are the extreme examples? Paul has the most concise plan I've ever seen for a politician. Have you looked at it? It was released not too long ago. Which other candidate has given a plan like his?

    Paul is against FEMA because he thinks it costs the tax payer more to allow such a body to intervene. I think I once heard him say he'd rather they just give the states the money. The fact that his district is one which sees many natural disasters and the fact that he keeps getting elected shows he both knows the problem more intimately than we do and that his constituents agree with him.
    Last edited by Ikki; 17-11-2011 at 11:06 PM.
    ★★★★★

  11. #311
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    But then it is not the liberty that Mr. Paul is advocating, is it ? And the crime of abortion was committed anyway, was it not ?

    I mean does it really matter if you are murdered in Texas or in Alabama ?
    It is exactly what Paul would advocate, many of his positions are simply constitutional - who has the power to do what.

    It does matter; it could mean the difference in sentencing. If you had the federal govt regulating, everyone would be subject to the same laws and ideology to deal with crime. This way, states can try different rehabilitative means.

    In the end, the Federal model is pretty much always better. If they produce a bad result, the other states see that and do not implement a certain criminal program. If they somehow take a novel approach, it greatly helps their criminal justice system; then other states will copy, naturally. The federal model, especially for a big country, is wonderful. It leads to competition and innovation amongst the states and drives the country forward.

  12. #312
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    I didn't call constitution a joke, but the fact that "Education isn't a fundamental constitutional right" is a joke.
    It isn't; it's simply a statement of fact. There are arguments against it being taken, one which sledger touched on the other being that is unfeasible - your own higher education tuition loans being a deafening example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    That was a debate, he was speaking in front of the nation where he could say and frankly if that is his answer in front of the national audience, I have no reason to go anywhere else to know what else he has to offer as his health care plan
    You can do what you like. Judge him by a soundbite or get to know his ideology and the reasons behind his positions. It reflects on your own concern about the matters that you would only consider small TV spots and not his full positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    I do not think you get the point. By law the Hospitals can not refuse treatment to a person (EMTALA signed into a law by Regan), so obviously those individuals would walk away with free treatment every time there is an emergency. So it is a burden passed on by the Hospitals directly to those of us who have health insurance coverage.
    The EMTALA, AFAIK, is about emergency care.

    The mandate does not restrict liberty of the individual, it creates a law that forces an individual to assume their responsibility towards their personal health care and make sure that the individual liberties of rest of us are not burdened by the uninsured individuals liberty.
    You've lost me, which mandate? Once universal health care is mandated and all must participate therein the liberty is lost.

    Paul, IIRC, is more OK with letting people opt out of many social programs. If they are good, then they should compete with the market place and their desirability will attract those not involved.

    I do not care what you call it, universal health care, obamacare or whatever. I just do not want to be the neighbor Mr. Paul wants me to be. I want my neighbor(s) to be responsible for his/their healthcare.
    Ironically, your position is exactly Paul's: the individual should be responsible for his own choices - and that includes healthcare.

  13. #313
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    I would prefer the FDA did not exist and drugs were regulated by the markets. You do not need the FDA and it has caused plenty of harm and probably prevented many good medicines. See that video I posted for Manan. Or this one: Milton Friedman - Government Regulation - YouTube
    .
    I did watch that video before posting my comment, while FDA is not the most efficient organization, it is impossible for me to not understand the importance of it. Also, I suggest you to read alternative opinion as well. You can try one here :- Fear of Eating - NYTimes.com

    FDA is not a perfect institution, In fact far from it and I know it first hand because I work in an FDA regulated industry and I know how big a pain it is but I also know how easy it will be for people to sell crap in the name of drugs.

  14. #314
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,894
    I can't imagine having any confidence whatsoever in what a doctor prescribes without the FDA - it's certainly not perfect but the alternative is lunacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  15. #315
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,601
    "Free market regulation" when it comes to something like food is such a terrible idea since it's such a non-transparent industry. It's the things you can't see that could kill you.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The British Politics Thread
    By cover drive man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4118
    Last Post: Yesterday, 11:08 AM
  2. Media
    By SirBloody Idiot in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 06:10 AM
  3. FAQ & Introduction Thread
    By Samuel_Vimes in forum Cricket Web Tennis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-06-2011, 11:06 AM
  4. Finally ! A Last Word Thread
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 07:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •