Vermont passing a law to provide healthcare to its residents

[Alaris]

I want to snatch food from the mouths of starving children...

Why would you do that? That is so mean.

Really, you should look up http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

Yes, I use some of those tricks myself, when I see that logical discourse fails. For example...

# 27 Anger Indicates a Weak Point
# 28 Persuade the Audience, Not The Opponent

Remember the infanticide talks? It took me digging a few of your articles then back to other websites before I actually understood what is happening. You didn't provide the info, you prompted the digging that ultimately led me to the info. Regardless of whether we agree on the issue, your links were of poor informational quality. After I did the digging, we agreed on the facts, just not on the wording... even though many facts were conveniently left out of your original spin.

Science does not endorse socialism. Science endorses truth. In fact, science has just about nothing to say on how we should live our lives, or on moral issues, except for pointing out some causal links we can use to inform our decisions. And I would like decisions to be far more fact-based than emotion-based or religion-based. What I was commenting on too is that you need more scientific thinking, less political "thinking"... it's making your head spin.

The way you attack me on "Creative Destruction" is further proof of what you do. You used the following tactic:

# 37 A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position

i.e. by pointing out the one word I interpreted incorrectly, you conclude (incorrectly) that I was wrong on the rest. And yet, clearly, you keep using emotionally-tainted discourse almost every post. For the record, I view as monsters anyone who uses emotionally-tained discourse to manipulate people, leftists included of course. Manipulation is the opposite of freedom and choice.

About the double dip...
1) Double dip is not entirely corfirmed as important according to your articles.
2) Failing to recover is better than causing the problem in the first place.

One last thing... I can't post the rules of being right without posting your favorite ones:

# 14 Claim Victory Despite Defeat
# 38 Become Personal, Insulting, Rude

For examples, see your next post.

edit:

Like I said, I have to take your word for it, but I kind of think that something published in a notable medical journal and with the examples thoroughly cited has credibility (Alaris, et al would certainly claim so).

You mean the article published in the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" on which wiki has to say this: "The organization, its members, and the journal have all been the subjects of much criticism from mainstream medical sources" and further down there's a quote saying: "Think Glenn Beck with an MD".

I also note that the article has 10 citations, 8 of which a web links, and 2 are previous articles from the author himself. The medical journal is notable, but for the wrong reasons. And the value of the citations is very shaky at best.

You should know better than to:

# 30 Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason

[Lensor]

Seems like the claim was solid, as printed in the medical journal. Why forbid someone from private purchase of un-covered medicine?

It is not forbidden, which is what I am trying to say. You only have to pay for the difference between the uncovered medicine and its covered equivalent.

This is actually a fine example of Gov't collusion. The insurance companies would love to have generic products prescribed, but the pharmaceutical companies have convinced the Gov't to protect their commercial interests by attempting to postponing the timeframe that generics could begin production, and misleading the public as to the relevance of trademarked medicine. The FDA both helps and hinders the process, which is why the pharma companies resort to licensing or protectionist schemes (like buying drugs off the Internet or from outside CONUS.

Now this I agree on. State-mandated monopolies (i.e. patents) are the work of the Devil as far as my agnostic self is concerned. It is proven that systems where there are no patents nor copyright, like software and fashion (even though the US has this spectaularly failing experiment with Software patents going on atm..), not only thrive, but are also able to progress at a much accelerated rate due to competition. The only reason for their existence is to protect the already rich (just ask any non-rich inventor how much THEIR copyright or patents protected them once some big company set their sights on it..).

The difference being, of course, that the Gov't has control of the justice system which malpractice would be adjudicated under.

Believe it or not, the Public health system is completely separate from the justice system. Of course, we do not have the same system of malpractice suits (for one you can never get punitive damages, only actual damages), so it is kinda hard to compare directly. My point was only that anecdotal evidence of instances of malpractice is not evidence for one system being better or worse than another. It carries no more weight than the "abundant evidence" for the efficacy of homeopathy...

Like I said, I have to take your word for it, but I kind of think that something published in a notable medical journal and with the examples thoroughly cited has credibility (Alaris, et al would certainly claim so).

Come on, that article is a pure debate piece and you know it. The references are tenuous at best, the "evidence" is anecdotal in nature, and quotes are ripped out of context to make a point. Honestly with those standards it would not be very hard to paint an equally bleak picture of the US system either (ask Michael Moore, he seemed to be particularly adept at it..)

[Alaris]

Come on, that article is a pure debate piece and you know it.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious if you spend 5 minutes actually looking at it.

[jmervyn]

Really, you should look up http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

I have to admit, I've wondered why you keep dwelling on this. Having perused this citation, you're right - without ever having known it, I have used these techniques. So I know how to argue an issue - I guess that makes me Hitler?

As seen here in this thread: #34 Don't let him off the hook. You have provided nothing to sensibly defend your claims, so you refuse to do so, and then -

# 28 Persuade the Audience, Not The Opponent

(RDarken), in addition to #3 Generalize your Opponent's Specific Statements, #16 Arguments Ad Hominem, #22 Petitio principii, 24 State a False Syllogism, #26 Turn The Tables, #29 Diversion,
#30 Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason, and #37 A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position.

I expect that there's plenty of others if we really want to review your posts.

Now that this is out of the way, would you care to answer the original question, or do you prefer to pretend that by your ad hom posts and your appeal to supposed scientific authority that you somehow have no need to prove your claim?

After I did the digging, we agreed on the facts, just not on the wording... even though many facts were conveniently left out of your original spin.

You forget (and #19 Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it), that was nothing of the kind. You pretended that the false position of abortionists - about the life of a child only starting after it fully exits the mother's womb - somehow applies equally to infants which have been born during full-birth abortion.

Science does not endorse socialism.

Yet socialists, such as yourself, claim scientific credentials, objectivity, and proof as supporting their purely political beliefs.

Manipulation is the opposite of freedom and choice.

Then why do you continue to avoid defending your claim, resorting to ad hominem and playing to my "fan base" in attempting to discredit me?

About the double dip...
1) Double dip is not entirely corfirmed as important according to your articles.

Untrue. The double dip in the housing market is a matter of record; the double dip recession as a whole will not be verified until the numbers are run at a later date. All those numbers are significantly negative, i.e. only after the calculations are run can the statement be made.

2) Failing to recover is better than causing the problem in the first place.

So you continue to try to hang the international crisis on George Bush? When this has been half a century in the making? Or that the Democrat-controlled Congress prevented action, while openly lying about the issue?

EDIT - You <sure> you want to talk about how this isn't going to be a "double dip"? Look at the jobs we'd need to create to recover...

# 14 Claim Victory Despite Defeat
# 38 Become Personal, Insulting, Rude

For examples, see your next post.

What, you <wouldn't> say a medical journal is authoritative? Well, my mistake then. Additionally, not only is my being rude quite in the eye of the beholder, but I wordsmith quite carefully to follow OTF protocol - something others here generally don't do in their replies.

You mean the article published in the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" on which wiki has to say this: "The organization, its members, and the journal have all been the subjects of much criticism from mainstream medical sources" and further down there's a quote saying: "Think Glenn Beck with an MD".

For someone who believes Wiki to be legitimate sourcing, you have a lot of gall questioning that journal (or even Glenn Beck, for that matter). "Common knowledge" is often neither, yet you persist in believing it is authoritative simply because of the report that Wiki often is as accurate as an encyclopedia. Looking up an encyclopedia article hardly proves something more substantively than specific review.

[jmervyn]

I'm not going to try to incorporate my reply to you back into what I just posted to Alaris. I hate having to compose, only to find that the conversation has continued.

It is not forbidden, which is what I am trying to say. You only have to pay for the difference between the uncovered medicine and its covered equivalent.

That would seem legitimate, which is why the citation of it being forbidden stands out so. I doubt we'll find agreement, since I can't even read the citation which you claim to be invalid.

Now this I agree on. State-mandated monopolies (i.e. patents) are the work of the Devil as far as my agnostic self is concerned.

I do have to wonder why you wouldn't believe the same of health care, a far more dangerous thing to allow State control over.

Believe it or not, the Public health system is completely separate from the justice system. Of course, we do not have the same system of malpractice suits (for one you can never get punitive damages, only actual damages), so it is kinda hard to compare directly.

This isn't supposed to surprise me, I trust? The fact that the State will prevent malpractice because they are the practitioner is to be expected.

My point was only that anecdotal evidence of instances of malpractice is not evidence for one system being better or worse than another. It carries no more weight than the "abundant evidence" for the efficacy of homeopathy...

At the same time, if one examines the scale of malpractice on a per capita basis, there would be two conclusions that are drawn. The first, <false> one, is that socialized medicine is inherently superior because not only are there anecdotes about doctors removing healthy tonsils, but such anecdotes are presumed to be the norm throughout the system.

The second, <valid> one, is that since socialized medicine <is> the norm, that sort of activity (and patients suffering dehydration, being 'stacked' in ambulances, not being cared for prior to dying of the thing they needed operated on), a comparison against a private institution of comparable 'value' would make the socialized system look like a sick joke.

The issue therefore boils down to the simple truth that good care is better than poor care, but socializing a system ensures that <everyone> (aside from the elites who run the system) will be able to receive that same poor care. Hence the jokes about socialism - ensuring that <everyone> is equally miserable.

Honestly with those standards it would not be very hard to paint an equally bleak picture of the US system either (ask Michael Moore, he seemed to be particularly adept at it..)

Perhaps. Moore, OTOH, took the "Potemkin village" angle and used the elites' medical care as representative of the norm. It would be like going to your private care institutions and claiming that they are of the same standard as your socialized system provides. Would this be accurate?

I remember German socialized medicine in particular. It was very reasonable quality - but I then found that their veterinarian services were even more superior, apparently because they weren't socialized!

[Alaris]

Having perused this citation, you're right - without ever having known it, I have used these techniques. So I know how to argue an issue

The you should know that from the same book comes...

Controversial Dialectic is the art of disputing, and of disputing in such a way as to hold one's own, whether one is in the right or the wrong - per fas et nefas. (...)

If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion which we had begun by expressing, or of the opinion of our adversary. (...)

Dialectic, then, need have nothing to do with truth, as little as the fencing master considers who is in the right when a dispute leads to a duel. Thrust and parry is the whole business. Dialectic is the art of intellectual fencing (...)

You come in flailing a sword, and expect from us rational discourse... because if we fight we reason you can slay us with your sword. We are therefore forced to defend ourselves.

And you claim that you seek truth? Only the one your sword carves...

You pretended that the false position of abortionists - about the life of a child only starting after it fully exits the mother's womb - somehow applies equally to infants which have been born during full-birth abortion.

No, I claimed that the important piece of information was that the infant in question was "judged by doctors as unlikely to survive even if assisted". That's the difference between "saving a life" and "prolonging suffering".

That you'd forget that and focus on definitions is ... intentional ;)

Yet socialists, such as yourself, claim scientific credentials, objectivity, and proof as supporting their purely political beliefs.

Well, I do have a PhD, and I do work in research, which elevates me above the general population in terms of "ability to evaluate information critically".

And yet, you'll often see me say that my "political beliefs" are just that, beliefs, opinions, preferences.

By the way, one question you keep hammering me about, "how I can justify that healthcare is a right", I have already answered... but I'll repeat it here. I think healthcare is a right, but this is my opinion, my belief, my preference. I would vote in favor of it.

What, you <wouldn't> say a medical journal is authoritative?

Depends which one. The one you quoted and are still defending has a long list serious problems:

Its mission statement includes "… a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine"

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[37] nor the Web of Science.[38] The National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[3] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[3] including:

* that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[39]
* that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[40]
* that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[41]
* that HIV does not cause AIDS;[42][43]
* that the "*** male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[44]

A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[45][46] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[47] the American Cancer Society,[48] and the World Health Organization,[49] among other major medical bodies.[50]

A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[51] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[52] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and wrote: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[53]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[54] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News by editor-in-chief Rudy Baum described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[55] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[56]

But then again, given your aficionado for spin, this is not surprising.

[Lensor]

That would seem legitimate, which is why the citation of it being forbidden stands out so. I doubt we'll find agreement, since I can't even read the citation which you claim to be invalid.

Well, considering I am not just pulling facts out of my butt (in contrast with that article), I really don't see what there is to agree about. There really is a right and a wrong here. I am sure you can Google translate this page, which is the page explaining the high cost shield by the actual government branch who decides which meds are included and not.

I do have to wonder why you wouldn't believe the same of health care, a far more dangerous thing to allow State control over.

Monopoly is not the same as the state providing something. Other parties are still allowed to provide the same service.

This isn't supposed to surprise me, I trust? The fact that the State will prevent malpractice because they are the practitioner is to be expected.

You misunderstand. It is the same for everyone, also private parties. We just dont have the concept of punative damages here (not just in health care, but everywhere).

At the same time, if one examines the scale of malpractice on a per capita basis, there would be two conclusions that are drawn. The first, <false> one, is that socialized medicine is inherently superior because not only are there anecdotes about doctors removing healthy tonsils, but such anecdotes are presumed to be the norm throughout the system.

The second, <valid> one, is that since socialized medicine <is> the norm, that sort of activity (and patients suffering dehydration, being 'stacked' in ambulances, not being cared for prior to dying of the thing they needed operated on), a comparison against a private institution of comparable 'value' would make the socialized system look like a sick joke.

The issue therefore boils down to the simple truth that good care is better than poor care, but socializing a system ensures that <everyone> (aside from the elites who run the system) will be able to receive that same poor care. Hence the jokes about socialism - ensuring that <everyone> is equally miserable.
Perhaps. Moore, OTOH, took the "Potemkin village" angle and used the elites' medical care as representative of the norm. It would be like going to your private care institutions and claiming that they are of the same standard as your socialized system provides. Would this be accurate?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.. Is anecdotal evidence "proof" of systemic flaw, or isnt it?

I remember German socialized medicine in particular. It was very reasonable quality - but I then found that their veterinarian services were even more superior, apparently because they weren't socialized!

But at the same time, people with little money shoot their dogs in stead of treating them.. Which is kinda the whole point. (and no, I am not suggesting socialized veterinary care.)

[jmervyn]

You come in flailing a sword, and expect from us rational discourse... because if we fight we reason you can slay us with your sword. We are therefore forced to defend ourselves.

And you claim that you seek truth? Only the one your sword carves...

My, how artfully you portray a one-sided battle, as if I'm a barbarian of deceit and irrationality - yet you claim naught but self-defense for the sort of monstrous propositions you espouse.

No, I claimed that the important piece of information was that the infant in question was "judged by doctors as unlikely to survive even if assisted". That's the difference between "saving a life" and "prolonging suffering".

Your supposed piece of information was not relevant to the issue; you dragged it in kicking & screaming because there was no other way to excuse what is normally considered murder in a court of law.

Well, I do have a PhD, and I do work in research, which elevates me above the general population in terms of "ability to evaluate information critically".

The arrogance is implicit, then?

And yet, you'll often see me say that my "political beliefs" are just that, beliefs, opinions, preferences.

Yet you still hide behind the degree as granting superiority in such beliefs. In other words, you're one of the group who believes that accreditation equates to wisdom.

By the way, one question you keep hammering me about, "how I can justify that healthcare is a right", I have already answered... but I'll repeat it here. I think healthcare is a right, but this is my opinion, my belief, my preference. I would vote in favor of it.

I challenged you to define <how> this illogical claim could be valid under any circumstances other than those of oppression. You failed to do so. Feel free to now.

Depends which one. The one you quoted and are still defending has a long list serious problems:

Even granting those claims, which given that you (when claiming a Doctorate continue to indefensibly cite wiki in regard to) consider valid, the same sort of complaints are often brought up about <any> journal. Remember the Lancet and the supposed Iraqi casualties? Besides, using the self-same techniques you lambaste me for doesn't exactly prove your position (#18 Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute, #25 Find One Instance to The Contrary) - just that you are no better than I when it comes to arguing on the Internet.

[jmervyn]

Well, considering I am not just pulling facts out of my butt (in contrast with that article), I really don't see what there is to agree about. There really is a right and a wrong here. I am sure you can Google translate this page, which is the page explaining the high cost shield by the actual government branch who decides which meds are included and not.

Sorry, but I hope you'll understand why quotation of the gov't body in charge is not implicitly convincing. Would you cite CIA Factbook regarding interrogation and care of inmates at Guantanamo Bay?

Monopoly is not the same as the state providing something. Other parties are still allowed to provide the same service.

The State inevitably achieves monopoly status, by virtue of being the "referee" on the "playing field". It can take a long while to do so, but it inevitably does.

You misunderstand. It is the same for everyone, also private parties. We just dont have the concept of punative damages here (not just in health care, but everywhere).

That's a net benefit, most likely, as tort law of the sort that I deride Holtzmann over is one of the primary factors behind our outrageous costs. But if there's not a possibility of damages, how are state doctors held to account for their mistakes? A review board? Because the private doctors will go out of business, but the state doctors don't.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.. Is anecdotal evidence "proof" of systemic flaw, or isnt it?

What I'm saying is that the same anecdotal evidence is what is used to claim socializing medicine is a good idea. The instances of poor care or lack of coverage - or in Obama's case, fabricated - are seized upon and then extrapolated as representative of the whole. When examined more closely, this extrapolation is indefensible, because for the amount of investment in gov't care, you could and do achieve far superior private care.

The difficulty is with regard to those who honestly are unable to pay for non-critical care. A sharp eye is needed to ensure that someone doesn't get a "stomach staple" at Gov't expense (I've firsthand knowledge of this happening under the U.S. system) or Viagra being paid for by the taxpayer (ditto) while potential breast cancer risk is ignored because of "death panel" mentality (again, ditto, in this case my own wife).

But at the same time, people with little money shoot their dogs in stead of treating them.. Which is kinda the whole point. (and no, I am not suggesting socialized veterinary care.)

Sure, and that's kind of the root of the issue. I know I argue the extreme opposite position on these forums, causing Alaris & co. to picture me as wanting to torture dogs and other small animals. They are unwilling or unable to see that their blind acceptance of the argument I argue against is far, far worse - and will lead to disaster. The various nations must sensibly consider what their objectives and associated costs should be, but there's very little sense involved because people are so casual about accepting socialism as a viable system of gov't.

We're seeing what that casual attitude ends in before our very eyes. I suspect in another ten years the so-called "far right" nationalist parties will be the dominant ones, and I'm quite concerned that the statists of either European variety (your Right, my Left) will start another war in the interim. Socialism does not have to be international to be dangerous, as if I needed to mention that to a European.

[Alaris]

Your supposed piece of information was not relevant to the issue

Says the child torturer.

The arrogance is implicit, then?
Yet you still hide behind the degree as granting superiority in such beliefs. In other words, you're one of the group who believes that accreditation equates to wisdom.

Quite false, in fact, that other guy that you quote was accredited (MD too), and yet is a complete sellout. Accreditation gives you *skills*, and what you do with those skills is a different matter.

My preference equals that of any other. My vote is worth one vote. I never claimed differently.

You also shouldn't believe me out of authority. The same goes with any other authority. However, my skills give me the ability to point out BS when I see it, and to gather proper data when I need it. This is the difference.

I challenged you to define <how> this illogical claim could be valid under any circumstances other than those of oppression. You failed to do so. Feel free to now.

*Challenge accepted*

I believe that healthcare should be a right, and I would vote in favor of it.

*Challenge won*

I won the challenge, because this is a valid representation of my opinions on the matter. In other words, opinions are just that, opinions. They can't be "debated". You can get someone to change his opinion

Even granting those claims, which given that you consider valid, the same sort of complaints are often brought up about <any> journal.

Oh hell no. There are many many far far more reputable journals than the one you keep defending.

And note that I didn't say your journal was scientific, because ... it ... is ... NOT ... scientific.

No scientific article is ever perfect, but an article as bad as yours would be rejected outright. Also, scientific articles have been retracted that had far more scientific merit than the one you still defend.

Clearly, you lack the skills to detect BS, because you are *still* trying to defend that terrible terrible article.