More Obamacare sh*t

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 9:59 pm

huntmmup wrote:Yes we're the best at treating the most unusual, rare diseases. But our health care system is ranked 37th in the world, behind countries like Costa Rica, Dominica, Morocco, etc because our health care system in general, sucks. If you do not have a job that provides health insurance, can not afford it, you are totally screwed. If you lose your job and do not have savings to pay for health insurance, your family is screwed. Get cancer while you dont have health insurance, and you are dead. Or a quarter million dollars in debt. Have a condition that your insurance company didnt put in your policy, and you are dead, or a quarter million dollars in debt.

That is why obamacare was a republican idea - require everybody to buy health insurance, like we do with car insurance, then when those people get sick they don't get a free ride to the emergency room. They pay their share.

beretta24 wrote: Guess what, those countries don't provide unlimited healthcare to all for all health issues either. You're talking out your backside again, and your logic is as flawed as ever, dhunt. At least Jim is still here to pat you on the back like a good little lap dog.

They proved your point again, huntmmup. When confronted with things they don't agree with, it's just time to get personal. The bastion of the conservative mind. :no:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am


Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby beretta24 » Thu May 15, 2014 6:02 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
huntmmup wrote:Yes we're the best at treating the most unusual, rare diseases. But our health care system is ranked 37th in the world, behind countries like Costa Rica, Dominica, Morocco, etc because our health care system in general, sucks. If you do not have a job that provides health insurance, can not afford it, you are totally screwed. If you lose your job and do not have savings to pay for health insurance, your family is screwed. Get cancer while you dont have health insurance, and you are dead. Or a quarter million dollars in debt. Have a condition that your insurance company didnt put in your policy, and you are dead, or a quarter million dollars in debt.

That is why obamacare was a republican idea - require everybody to buy health insurance, like we do with car insurance, then when those people get sick they don't get a free ride to the emergency room. They pay their share.

beretta24 wrote: Guess what, those countries don't provide unlimited healthcare to all for all health issues either. You're talking out your backside again, and your logic is as flawed as ever, dhunt. At least Jim is still here to pat you on the back like a good little lap dog.

They proved your point again, huntmmup. When confronted with things they don't agree with, it's just time to get personal. The bastion of the conservative mind. :no:

Forgive me for not being more cordial with a guy that has been banned but skirts around the rules to come back just to poke at people with the same information even after its been debunked.

And why you jump on the band wagon makes little sense as several have communicated clearly that the ACA did nothing to address the cost of healthcare, and neither does a single payer system. Our care will always cost more when we have better technology AND have monopolized access to same.

Why can't I drive to Canada or Mexico to buy the same drug for less? Because our Government made it illegal in order to support the drug companies. That literally kills people, but you and dhunt want to talk about how the ACA is such a good thing.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 7:59 am

huntmmup wrote:But our health care system is ranked 37th in the world, behind countries like Costa Rica, Dominica, Morocco, etc because our health care system in general, sucks.

Would you go to Costa Rica, Dominica, or Morocco for your health care?

No freaking way. It doesn't pass the laugh test. Those measure that do that are intended to make the failed nations around the world feel better about themselves and make America look worse. If you and I sat down and defined measure of the health care system and then calculated those measure, all these poor countries with low quality of life would score based on reality and not some egalitarian notion that gives weight to equality as if your health care suffers because Bill Gates gets even better health care.

When you include in equality, it gives silly answers. On scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the worst in the world and 10 being the best in the world and ranking within a country what the bottom 10% and top 10% get.

America it's probably a 5 and a 10, if not higher for the bottom 10%. In the poor countries that are supposedly better, excluding those that are so wealthy they can leave the country for medical treatment, it's probably a 3 and 5 maybe 6. Their best is at bost slightly better than our worst, but the "gap" between the best and worst is smaller. But if you put a lot of weight on that "gap" then you can say the country where the people get care in the range of 3 to 5 is better than the country where the range is 5 to 10 even though everybody in the one country is getting better health care. This is literally how these crazy scores are reported.

If it were me, I'd compare the average American with the average Costa Rican and the American at the 10% level with the Costa Rican at the 10% level with ZERO consideration in the gap between the two. The poor Costa Rican is not getting better health care if the Average Costa Rican is getting the same, is he? You wouldn't be getting better health care if Barack Obama's family got inferior health care, would you? The gap does not matter. If anything, it is a positive driving force for working harder and smarter and encouraging your kids to do the same because of the potential for even better health care. If everybody is the same, why not just go on welfare?

huntmmup wrote:Yes we're the best at treating the most unusual, rare diseases.

How can we be better at treating the unusual and rare and not be better at treating the common :fingerhead: Again, it makes no sense. You have to separate the personal behavior of the people, from the medical care they get. You tear an ACL, do you want to be in America or Morocco or France or England or Canada? You have a heart attack, cancer, a traumatic injury like a car crash, ... We are so good at trauma, it is actually a large contributor to the reduction in the murder right. You were not murdered if the doctors save your life.

Glimmerjim wrote:That reminds me Spinner. .When previously condemning nationalized Health Care, you were complaining about the per capita cost, but you neglected to show the US per capita cost to put it all in context. Thanks! :thumbsup:

Listen, you might learn something. Wealthy people spend more money on EVERYTHING! This is a good thing. They can afford it. And what better thing to spend that increased wealth on than better health care. Getting wealthier as a nation is not about bigger houses and bigger cars and more vacations. It's about having the resources to get the best care for your wife when she has cancer. It's about getting the best care for your wife when she has to have a surgeon open her chest and remove a tumor located in the middle of her chest near her heart. It's getting the best care for your wife when she has third degree heart block and needs a pacemaker. BTW, that's just a short list of the big things that are very personal to me.

Now, with Obamacare, my health care costs have gone up a hell of a lot in one year. The quality has not improved. The convenience has not gotten better. Nothing has changed except the cost. That is what I am condemn. That is destructive. Now for me, that doesn't hamper my ability to give the best health care to my family, but for people earning a lot less than me, this will do real harm to them and their family.

A nation becoming wealthier and choosing to spend more on health care :thumbsup:

A nation added inefficient bureaucracy and undesirable mandates and forcing higher spend :mad:

A nation turning health care spending into government budget items competing with pork barrel projects Image

Glimmerjim wrote:You are most adept at putting up graphs that depict the problem with anything you wish to denigrate..........yet you always seem to avoid the core of the question. Is this a technique developed from years of CYA when authoring reports on energy? :hi:
And in re to the chart above......apparently, after hundreds of years of "Great health care", our claim to fame is that we have the highest percentage of drug users. That has, indeed, been a big problem with conservative talk show hosts, but we're working on it! What it means other than that is beyond comprehension.

You miss the point.

If a person sits at home eating Twinkies and smoking crack and does at 35 years old of a massive heart attack does that indicate that their is a problem with insurance, hospitals, medical technology, it's cost, availability or any part of the health care system? Not at all.

Now, I know liberals really don't believe in freedom. They want the government to take away this man's freedom to be a self-destructive dumbass and do what they want. Freedom loving people such as myself never want the government to have any power to force this guy to stop eating Twinkies and smoking crack. That is what his family, friends, neighbors, and the community are therefore. However, sometimes there is just nothing you can do to save everyone from themselves.

This chart shows that there are a lot of dumbasses in America. That does not tell us a think about our health care system. The one thing we can do and we fail to do because the system is totally dominated by the Democrat aligned teacher's unions is K-12 education.

BTW, what's with all the personal attacks lately? :rolleyes:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu May 15, 2014 8:12 am

I am not sure what Dumbemrightup thinks when he says the taking wealthy peoples money makes us stronger. I doubt anyone but DERP knows what he is thinking, including his psychologist!

Stealing money from one person to pay for another doesn't make a nation stronger. We are steadily weakening as the nation as the government keeps trying to steal more money from the citizen. Who thinks that is somehow strength? Where were we in the world after WWII? How about after Reagan when the USSR fell? Just exactly where do we stand in the world now as a nation? Russia mocks us and laughs in our face. Syria laughed in our face. Libya laughed in our face, and killed our ambassador. Al Quaida is back on the rise. We are falling as a nation economically and morally which is on part of why our strength and power as a nation are failing. So now it is a great idea to waste money increase medical costs to make the rich insurance companies richer, and give away freedom. Lets toss in selling jobs overseas, and taxing those we don't like. Yep, that is gonna fix it all. :lol3:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 11:05 am

Glimmerjim wrote: They proved your point again, huntmmup. When confronted with things they don't agree with, it's just time to get personal. The bastion of the conservative mind. :no:

beretta24 wrote: Forgive me for not being more cordial with a guy that has been banned but skirts around the rules to come back just to poke at people with the same information even after its been debunked.

I had no idea of that situation, beretta, but did wonder why you referred to him as "dhunt". :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby beretta24 » Thu May 15, 2014 11:12 am

:thumbsup:
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Rat Creek » Thu May 15, 2014 4:11 pm

Ruining a healthcare system that the vast majority were happy with to the tune of a trillion dollars, to help the very few exceptions is a really, really bad idea. Only Big Gov things that is a solution and not a disaster.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby beretta24 » Thu May 15, 2014 7:24 pm

That's not what the ACA was about. They could have covered the exceptions in a bill under a hundred pages, but they couldn't have hidden the trash that will drive us into a single payer system that way. Plus, it never would've passed because it would have been too easy to show that it wasn't revenue neutral.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 7:40 pm

beretta24 wrote:That's not what the ACA was about. They could have covered the exceptions in a bill under a hundred pages, but they couldn't have hidden the trash that will drive us into a single payer system that way. Plus, it never would've passed because it would have been too easy to show that it wasn't revenue neutral.

I agree that it was appalling for Pelosi to state "just pass the bill now and understand it later", but that is so endemic to the system that it is no way unusual. I have read, but cannot locate right now, the percentage of bills actually read by legislators prior to voting on them, and the numbers are shocking.
I have to give kudos to Rand Paul for taking steps to correct this, as in:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ore-voting
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby cartervj » Thu May 15, 2014 9:05 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
cartervj wrote:
huntmmup wrote:Yes we're the best at treating the most unusual, rare diseases. But our health care system is ranked 37th in the world, behind countries like Costa Rica, Dominica, Morocco, etc because our health care system in general, sucks. If you do not have a job that provides health insurance, can not afford it, you are totally screwed. If you lose your job and do not have savings to pay for health insurance, your family is screwed. Get cancer while you dont have health insurance, and you are dead. Or a quarter million dollars in debt. Have a condition that your insurance company didnt put in your policy, and you are dead, or a quarter million dollars in debt.

That is why obamacare was a republican idea - require everybody to buy health insurance, like we do with car insurance, then when those people get sick they don't get a free ride to the emergency room. They pay their share.



Are all those countries using the SAME criteria for the ranking, go look it up and get back to us. I already know the answer, you should too!

Don't know, carter. Are all the countries using the same criteria on Spinner's chart?



haven't looked at his, I just know the figures dhunt posted is flawed and has been debunked by both sides
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7366
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby beretta24 » Thu May 15, 2014 9:31 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:That's not what the ACA was about. They could have covered the exceptions in a bill under a hundred pages, but they couldn't have hidden the trash that will drive us into a single payer system that way. Plus, it never would've passed because it would have been too easy to show that it wasn't revenue neutral.

I agree that it was appalling for Pelosi to state "just pass the bill now and understand it later", but that is so endemic to the system that it is no way unusual. I have read, but cannot locate right now, the percentage of bills actually read by legislators prior to voting on them, and the numbers are shocking.
I have to give kudos to Rand Paul for taking steps to correct this, as in:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ore-voting

Need more multi-term legislators replaced on both sides for it to get traction though.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 10:06 pm

beretta24 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:That's not what the ACA was about. They could have covered the exceptions in a bill under a hundred pages, but they couldn't have hidden the trash that will drive us into a single payer system that way. Plus, it never would've passed because it would have been too easy to show that it wasn't revenue neutral.

I agree that it was appalling for Pelosi to state "just pass the bill now and understand it later", but that is so endemic to the system that it is no way unusual. I have read, but cannot locate right now, the percentage of bills actually read by legislators prior to voting on them, and the numbers are shocking.
I have to give kudos to Rand Paul for taking steps to correct this, as in:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ore-voting

Need more multi-term legislators replaced on both sides for it to get traction though.

Apparently so, beretta. I find it frankly shocking that not every legislator in office would want this to pass. It's disappointing to me. All this says is that they want their manipulations readily available, with no accountability to their constituents. Contrary to what you may believe about me and my opinions, I am the first to admit that we are in a horribly skewed, f'ed up system of running this country. Honestly, as much as they are magnified by discordance, I think that we, you and I and me and the rest of the DHC'ers, have almost identical desires, with discrepancies only in the way in which we hope to change them. I want every able bodied person to contribute to society; I want people of any station to have the opportunity through ambition and desire to be able to rise in socio-economic status; I want fairness of judicial proceedings; I want a strong country that leads the world in bringing a level of civilization and peace and prosperity unknown in many countries; I want to stop those instances of accepted social brutality in any form in the world; I want unity amongst ourselves..... not agreement, because conflict in opinion is healthy and results in justification for agreement....... but a common goal of wanting those in squallid living conditions to rise above them, for our children to take their place as the best educated in the world, leading to a position of strength in the world, honest attempts to find the root causes for possessing the most violently internal country in a position of first world dominance. To hope that this country can begin to see out of myopic, System One knee-jerk reactionism and begin to intelligently plan for the future. A future of increasing satisfaction and hope in our lives.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby beretta24 » Fri May 16, 2014 2:52 am

I have no doubt most liberals, conservatives, and the rest want largely the same things. I just think a lot of liberals are too optimistic regarding how much people will do when you give them a fish, and the liberals in power are too arrogant to think anyone but themselves is qualified to understand and implement the solution so their one sided policies fail time and time again.

On the other hand many conservatives don't seem to recognize the limitations on their views when applied to the real world. Some of the things that sound great in theory have practical limitations when you factor in greedy people. And those that realize are often unwilling to to even accept a reasonable compromise when discussing their views with a liberal because the perceived alternative is too extreme.

People from both sides seem to fail in recognizing the pitfalls of taking their views to an extreme, while assuming the worst in the opposition's view. A perfect example is taxes. Are people paying too much or too little? The ideal state falls on a bell curve and we spend so much time arguing about the negative impact of operating at the tail end of the opposition's curve that little productive discussion results.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri May 16, 2014 7:29 am

Glimmerjim wrote:I want people of any station to have the opportunity through ambition and desire to be able to rise in socio-economic status

How high can someone with an IQ of 80 rise in socio-economic status?

This is one area where people live in a fantasy world. People have no problem accepting that people have far below and far above average physical ability and therefore all the best training in the world will never make those at the low end of the spectrum (not disabled, but simply less able) highly skilled and capable at physical activities. The best training can do a lot, but if all people get decent training, the deciding factor will be the inherent differences in physical ability. The same is true for intellectual ability, but we like to pretend otherwise. It is not true.

What is also not true is that if Einstein married a woman of equal intellectual ability that the average intelligence of their children is the same as that of the average population. No different than physical ability. Not all kids of those with great physical ability will have great physical ability, but the odds are much better and not the same.

An efficient meritocracy will lead to a society stratified by merit. When the best and brightest from the worst socio-economic situations have the ability to go to a top notch college, what happens over time? Do the best and brightest stay and marry the worst and dimmest to maintain the status quo or do they preferentially leave and drive down the average over time? I can tell you definitively that they leave. This is precisely what has happened where I grew up over several generations with each generation being subsequently worse. This is probably true of every poor socio-economic community. It's not white flight. It's flight of the best and brightest and happens in all communities regardless of race. Did the Obama's move into the hood or do they move in to Hyde Park and live with their fellow Harvard and other elite educated neighbors?

We have to get realistic. In the information age. Intellectual ability has a HUGE premium. Which means the lack of it is a HUGE handicap. Therefore we need to be realistic. First, not everyone is college material. This is not a problem. It's just a reality. We need to provide these people with the best skills possible and there are a lot of great skills that are valuable. Training kids in these skills was the collasal failure of my high school which left a lot of kids competing with illegal aliens for jobs at the chicken factory and warehouses who could have been electricians, plumbers, mechanics, welders, or so many skills that pay well. The second part is that these people should not have to compete with foreign nationals for the limit jobs. Those that do have the benefits of the right skills for the information age need to pay a little more for the things produced by Americans without them.

We have a pretty efficient meritocracy. We should make it even more efficient, particularly by improving K-12 education in the places where it is dysfunctional. It will help all kids from the best and brightest to the worst and dullest. We just have to realize that this will lead to the best and brightest preferentially moving away and leaving the worst and dullest behind and a more heterogeneous society and therefore the need to more heterogeneous local governments and not one-size-fits-all central planning. We are far too heterogeneous for that to work and we will get more heterogeneous and not less. Not the skin deep heterogeneity, but the real heterogeneity of head and heart.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat May 17, 2014 4:40 pm

beretta24 wrote:I have no doubt most liberals, conservatives, and the rest want largely the same things. I just think a lot of liberals are too optimistic regarding how much people will do when you give them a fish, and the liberals in power are too arrogant to think anyone but themselves is qualified to understand and implement the solution so their one sided policies fail time and time again.

On the other hand many conservatives don't seem to recognize the limitations on their views when applied to the real world. Some of the things that sound great in theory have practical limitations when you factor in greedy people. And those that realize are often unwilling to to even accept a reasonable compromise when discussing their views with a liberal because the perceived alternative is too extreme.

People from both sides seem to fail in recognizing the pitfalls of taking their views to an extreme, while assuming the worst in the opposition's view. A perfect example is taxes. Are people paying too much or too little? The ideal state falls on a bell curve and we spend so much time arguing about the negative impact of operating at the tail end of the opposition's curve that little productive discussion results.

Yep. Well said, beretta.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat May 17, 2014 4:54 pm

beretta24 wrote:People from both sides seem to fail in recognizing the pitfalls of taking their views to an extreme, while assuming the worst in the opposition's view. A perfect example is taxes. Are people paying too much or too little? The ideal state falls on a bell curve and we spend so much time arguing about the negative impact of operating at the tail end of the opposition's curve that little productive discussion results.

What do you think is the maximum tax rate earned on any dollar?

Nobody is arguing for zero.

Where does the bell curve peak at?

Your platitude sounds good, but you have zero facts here.

Conservatives are not proposing something that has not existed before. We simple want to return to government spending levels that existed even in the 20th century.

Taxes are about freedom. It's not about maximizing revenue to the government so we can maximize the size of government. It is about paying the bills, the necessary expenses of the necessary evil.

So when you ask about tax rates, really what you are asking about is what is the right size of government at the local, state, and federal level? That fixes your average tax rate.

The next question is how to collect that average tax rate by doing the minimum harm to the country as a whole while not doing excessive harm to any individual. Most conservatives support a high standard deduction with a single tax rate on every dollar above that after legitimate business expenses are subtracted offand no deductions or gimmicks to manipulate society to do the "right" thing. Others prefer a sales tax of some form.

These are not extreme views. I wouldn't qualify most the view of must Democrat voters and liberal people as extreme either. They just do not work. That's all.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat May 17, 2014 4:57 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:I want people of any station to have the opportunity through ambition and desire to be able to rise in socio-economic status

SpinnerMan wrote: How high can someone with an IQ of 80 rise in socio-economic status?

I notice that you bring IQ to the table quite frequently, Spinner. I personally believe IQ is over-rated, extremely biased, and non-applicable to success in life.

SpinnerMan wrote: This is one area where people live in a fantasy world. People have no problem accepting that people have far below and far above average physical ability and therefore all the best training in the world will never make those at the low end of the spectrum (not disabled, but simply less able) highly skilled and capable at physical activities. The best training can do a lot, but if all people get decent training, the deciding factor will be the inherent differences in physical ability. The same is true for intellectual ability, but we like to pretend otherwise. It is not true.

No. I simply believe that "intellectual ability" is far more ambiguous than many would like to claim, especially those who have received kudos for their results on an IQ test.

SpinnerMan wrote: First, not everyone is college material. This is not a problem. It's just a reality. We need to provide these people with the best skills possible and there are a lot of great skills that are valuable. Training kids in these skills was the collasal failure of my high school which left a lot of kids competing with illegal aliens for jobs at the chicken factory and warehouses who could have been electricians, plumbers, mechanics, welders, or so many skills that pay well. The second part is that these people should not have to compete with foreign nationals for the limit jobs. Those that do have the benefits of the right skills for the information age need to pay a little more for the things produced by Americans without them.


And there in a nutshell is my entire philosophy, Spiiner. You have intimated that "those that are not college material' can still be fine electricians, plumbers, mechanics, welders etc..."

In respect to your prior statements re IQ, upward mobility, and intellectual ability, this is hogwash. I know many in the construction inductry that I would put up against any engineer in whatever non-specialized test you would like to come up with. Not to blow my own horn, but I was an electrician as you know for a long period in my life. I will go head to head with you on any non-trade specific IQ test you wish to proffer. And will do so for any amount of money you feel comfortable losing. ( :lol3: )
You are just completely over-generalizing based on what you wish the world to be. And it completely corrodes your world view and your concept of the value of your fellow man, IMO.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat May 17, 2014 5:13 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:I notice that you bring IQ to the table quite frequently, Spinner. I personally believe IQ is over-rated, extremely biased, and non-applicable to success in life.

If you believe IQ is non-applicable to success in life, you must have an IQ of 70. It's like saying physical ability is non-applicable. Of course it is. The better physically and intellectually you are, the better your odds are. It guarantees nothing, but it simple give you many more options, more margin for error, etc.

A person with an IQ of 80 and a person with an IQ of 120, on average the person with an IQ of 120 will do much better in life by all measures. That doesn't mean that someone with an IQ of 80 can't have a good life. He's just got a lot less options than the guy with an IQ of 120. Same with the guy that is 5'2" and weak versus the guy that is 6'2" and strong as an ox. One has more options and more options makes success more likely.

We are not all the same. You don't see kids with Down Syndrome becoming doctors, lawyers, engineers, or even electricians. It's a continuum and being much further up that continuum gives you a lot of advantages until you get too far up the continuum that you start having social and other problems that can happen for the super intelligent.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat May 17, 2014 5:21 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:I notice that you bring IQ to the table quite frequently, Spinner. I personally believe IQ is over-rated, extremely biased, and non-applicable to success in life.

If you believe IQ is non-applicable to success in life, you must have an IQ of 70. It's like saying physical ability is non-applicable. Of course it is. The better physically and intellectually you are, the better your odds are. It guarantees nothing, but it simple give you many more options, more margin for error, etc.

A person with an IQ of 80 and a person with an IQ of 120, on average the person with an IQ of 120 will do much better in life by all measures. That doesn't mean that someone with an IQ of 80 can't have a good life. He's just got a lot less options than the guy with an IQ of 120. Same with the guy that is 5'2" and weak versus the guy that is 6'2" and strong as an ox. One has more options and more options makes success more likely.

We are not all the same. You don't see kids with Down Syndrome becoming doctors, lawyers, engineers, or even electricians. It's a continuum and being much further up that continuum gives you a lot of advantages until you get too far up the continuum that you start having social and other problems that can happen for the super intelligent.

I agree somewhat, Spinner. I just think that it is hard to make an IQ test that doesn't rely on a specific ability that doesn't necessarily reflect total ability. It obviously is heavily weighted on reading skills, for instance.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby beretta24 » Sat May 17, 2014 7:57 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
beretta24 wrote:People from both sides seem to fail in recognizing the pitfalls of taking their views to an extreme, while assuming the worst in the opposition's view. A perfect example is taxes. Are people paying too much or too little? The ideal state falls on a bell curve and we spend so much time arguing about the negative impact of operating at the tail end of the opposition's curve that little productive discussion results.

What do you think is the maximum tax rate earned on any dollar?

Nobody is arguing for zero.

Where does the bell curve peak at?

Your platitude sounds good, but you have zero facts here.

Conservatives are not proposing something that has not existed before. We simple want to return to government spending levels that existed even in the 20th century.

Taxes are about freedom. It's not about maximizing revenue to the government so we can maximize the size of government. It is about paying the bills, the necessary expenses of the necessary evil.

So when you ask about tax rates, really what you are asking about is what is the right size of government at the local, state, and federal level? That fixes your average tax rate.

The next question is how to collect that average tax rate by doing the minimum harm to the country as a whole while not doing excessive harm to any individual. Most conservatives support a high standard deduction with a single tax rate on every dollar above that after legitimate business expenses are subtracted offand no deductions or gimmicks to manipulate society to do the "right" thing. Others prefer a sales tax of some form.

These are not extreme views. I wouldn't qualify most the view of must Democrat voters and liberal people as extreme either. They just do not work. That's all.

I agree taxes are too high based on the government running a deficit AND spending money on things the Fed has no business financing. However, that doesn't change the fact that many will argue for lower taxes without specific justification, and others will maintain the tax burden could be higher. The lack of specifics is my point. Most don't justify their position well and the argument goes in circles. On top of it determining the optimum tax rate is value dependent.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat May 17, 2014 8:38 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: If you believe IQ is non-applicable to success in life, you must have an IQ of 70.


Man....don't I wish! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun May 18, 2014 6:27 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:I notice that you bring IQ to the table quite frequently, Spinner. I personally believe IQ is over-rated, extremely biased, and non-applicable to success in life.

If you believe IQ is non-applicable to success in life, you must have an IQ of 70. It's like saying physical ability is non-applicable. Of course it is. The better physically and intellectually you are, the better your odds are. It guarantees nothing, but it simple give you many more options, more margin for error, etc.

A person with an IQ of 80 and a person with an IQ of 120, on average the person with an IQ of 120 will do much better in life by all measures. That doesn't mean that someone with an IQ of 80 can't have a good life. He's just got a lot less options than the guy with an IQ of 120. Same with the guy that is 5'2" and weak versus the guy that is 6'2" and strong as an ox. One has more options and more options makes success more likely.

We are not all the same. You don't see kids with Down Syndrome becoming doctors, lawyers, engineers, or even electricians. It's a continuum and being much further up that continuum gives you a lot of advantages until you get too far up the continuum that you start having social and other problems that can happen for the super intelligent.

I agree somewhat, Spinner. I just think that it is hard to make an IQ test that doesn't rely on a specific ability that doesn't necessarily reflect total ability. It obviously is heavily weighted on reading skills, for instance.

Just because you believe it is hard to measure, does NOT mean that it does not matter. It's not any harder to measure than physical ability. Both are complicated. Strength, eye hand coordination, speed, ... Boiling it down to a single number is obviously flawed as in intelligence, but that doesn't change the importance of it. It also doesn't mean that a flawed measure is not valuable and insightful. There are ways to measure IQ without reading a word. Did you know that? Others that require minimal reading skills.

Given the very broad range in intellectual ability, it is something that we cannot ignore and expect to provide the best education possible for everyone. Now, don't assume I am implying that someone with well below average intelligence is not capable of doing a tremendous amount. It's just they are not as capable and we cannot expect them to have the same career path as the top 10% and our college obsessed education culture. Someone with an IQ of 80 has a tremendous ability to learn, just not at the same rate and to the same level as someone with an IQ of 120.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16431
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Bluesky2012 » Sun May 18, 2014 8:02 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:
huntmmup wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Define affordable. Cover deductibles, actual coverage, and services available before you make that claim. I have $50 bucks that says there is nothing afordable about it at all.


You would lose $50 to a lot of older people. I do not know about younger people, I have read generally that young healthy people are going to be the ones paying more to cover older with health problems like my wife. But yes our premiums are lower, same coverage (according to our specialist, a few additional items are covered than were before), same deductible.

What gets me is people who think this is socialized health care. :lol3: apparently they have never bought insurance before, because I'm sure as heck still paying a private company for insurance.

So you're happy to have others pay for your care. That's mighty generous of you.

Or, at times, to help others pay for theirs. That's essentially what makes the US what it is beretta. It's not just generosity, it's doing what is best for the society. Honest, this society isn't founded on the "beretta states of America". Now, granted, we are turning rapidly into an oligarchy in which the few simply utilize the dispensable many, but that is not what we are supposed to be. It's the inevitable conclusion of free-market capitalism. No question about it.



So glimmer what you're saying is that by your logic, it is moral for another mans existence to place a burden on me? You may call this "forced benevolence" as part of civil society, but I call it theft. The capital that I once owned is now being taken from me for someone else. Wow don't I feel so good about myself!

Just please answer me, why is it okay for your existence to force a burden onto me or anyone else? What did I do to owe you or your wife health care?
"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

"If you don't chew big red, then f- you"
User avatar
Bluesky2012
hunter
 
Posts: 799
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun May 18, 2014 8:13 am

Bluesky2012 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:
huntmmup wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Define affordable. Cover deductibles, actual coverage, and services available before you make that claim. I have $50 bucks that says there is nothing afordable about it at all.


You would lose $50 to a lot of older people. I do not know about younger people, I have read generally that young healthy people are going to be the ones paying more to cover older with health problems like my wife. But yes our premiums are lower, same coverage (according to our specialist, a few additional items are covered than were before), same deductible.

What gets me is people who think this is socialized health care. :lol3: apparently they have never bought insurance before, because I'm sure as heck still paying a private company for insurance.

So you're happy to have others pay for your care. That's mighty generous of you.

Or, at times, to help others pay for theirs. That's essentially what makes the US what it is beretta. It's not just generosity, it's doing what is best for the society. Honest, this society isn't founded on the "beretta states of America". Now, granted, we are turning rapidly into an oligarchy in which the few simply utilize the dispensable many, but that is not what we are supposed to be. It's the inevitable conclusion of free-market capitalism. No question about it.



So glimmer what you're saying is that by your logic, it is moral for another mans existence to place a burden on me? You may call this "forced benevolence" as part of civil society, but I call it theft. The capital that I once owned is now being taken from me for someone else. Wow don't I feel so good about myself!

Just please answer me, why is it okay for your existence to force a burden onto me or anyone else? What did I do to owe you or your wife health care?

You implicity agreed to be part of this society by living within its current political system. We don't pick and choose what laws we want to abide by and which we don't, as this leads to total anarchy. In being part of this system, you have accepted the onus of a certain sharing of something of which you currently have an abundance of in the surety that if you, at some point, have a dire shortage of said something, others will contribute to you.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: More Obamacare sh*t

Postby beretta24 » Sun May 18, 2014 8:20 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
Bluesky2012 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:
huntmmup wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Define affordable. Cover deductibles, actual coverage, and services available before you make that claim. I have $50 bucks that says there is nothing afordable about it at all.


You would lose $50 to a lot of older people. I do not know about younger people, I have read generally that young healthy people are going to be the ones paying more to cover older with health problems like my wife. But yes our premiums are lower, same coverage (according to our specialist, a few additional items are covered than were before), same deductible.

What gets me is people who think this is socialized health care. :lol3: apparently they have never bought insurance before, because I'm sure as heck still paying a private company for insurance.

So you're happy to have others pay for your care. That's mighty generous of you.

Or, at times, to help others pay for theirs. That's essentially what makes the US what it is beretta. It's not just generosity, it's doing what is best for the society. Honest, this society isn't founded on the "beretta states of America". Now, granted, we are turning rapidly into an oligarchy in which the few simply utilize the dispensable many, but that is not what we are supposed to be. It's the inevitable conclusion of free-market capitalism. No question about it.



So glimmer what you're saying is that by your logic, it is moral for another mans existence to place a burden on me? You may call this "forced benevolence" as part of civil society, but I call it theft. The capital that I once owned is now being taken from me for someone else. Wow don't I feel so good about myself!

Just please answer me, why is it okay for your existence to force a burden onto me or anyone else? What did I do to owe you or your wife health care?

You implicity agreed to be part of this society by living within its current political system. We don't pick and choose what laws we want to abide by and which we don't, as this leads to total anarchy. In being part of this system, you have accepted the onus of a certain sharing of something of which you currently have an abundance of in the surety that if you, at some point, have a dire shortage of said something, others will contribute to you.

You never came close to answering the question. The law forces me to choose between supporting others or facing others negative consequences, but it doesn't justify whether or not said law is morally right.

And it appears you feel healthcare is a basic right of every citizen, is that true?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests