Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society.

You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.

Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief.

What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?

 

[Bombur]

You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.

Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief.

What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?

Reality.

Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand. At least that is what I would want to be the basis of decisions.

You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.

UHC is a fine example IMO of how the US shoots itself in the foot because of ideology trumping reality.

 

[dblack]

Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief.

What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?

Reality.

Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.

Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.

 

[Bombur]

What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?

Reality.

Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.

Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.

You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."

You have already established your bias very clearly in this thread and now you want me to just ignore that. No.

You can't resort to the gross hyperbole you have and then still claim a lack of preconceived bias. Your can't specifically establish your assumed conclusion in all cases and then claim you are objectively looking at the facts and the values of all Americans.

You can maybe convince yourself that is what you are doing but I am not fooled.

 

[dblack]

Reality.

Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.

Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.[/QUOTE]

You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."

Huh? How?

 

[Bombur]

Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.

You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."

Huh? How?

I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.

You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.

 

[RKMBrown]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result is in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby and ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

Exactly. 'The-ends-justifies-the-means' is a problem when we're asked to ignore questionable means because they produce a desired result.

We are in agreement, all three. Perhaps my use of language was confusing but considering every person and event as an end in itself implies we cannot treat them/it as means to some desirable result. Thus, we can not rape a woman to produce a baby because although we may need that baby to keep the human race alive, her will of not having a baby must be respected as a end in itself. Thus, sacrificing her desires for the greater good is never ok. In the area of applied ethics one can properly discusses such examples but bottom line, the ends should never justify the means.

I think where we disagree with my assertion of "never." This atemporal assertion conflicts with the our current economy: the idea of exploitation, treating a laborer as a means to generating profit. Sure, workers are "paid" but this is not a commensurate exchange. Given many workers are near poverty line openly demonstrates how we treat laborer as a means . Even the worker herself tends to treat their laboring as a means to an end--the paycheck--not as an end in itself. This is the whole foundation of alienation of the working class. The worker no longer views their laboring as important or an end, it is merely a means to sustenance (and to keep society functioning which benefits the profiteer much more than the alienated worker).

Corporations don't force people to work and our poverty line of 40k dollars a year for some and 95k for others is complete and utter BS. As is the assumption that one earner on minimum wage doing that which is considered to be the least valuable job in this country, should be given a wage worthy of a skilled professional to the point where that person MUST have the income to cover all wants, needs, and desires to live like a king in a house on a hill. The entire measure of poverty in this country is upside down.

 

[dblack]

You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."

Huh? How?

I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.

You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.

I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.

You claim that your ideology is based on:

Reality.

So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.

Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.

Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.

You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.

Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how your ideology informs your opinions.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.

 

[RKMBrown]

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector. Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you.

They did expand medicare and medicaid... the did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.

No, I disagree. Here's the thing, you don't need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the TV you're buying is right for you, but you DO need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the little pain you feel in your side is something serious that needs to be operated on. We're talking about a sector where people don't know what they need, and a sector where people don't care about the cost of things.

Simply put, the competitive forces that are usually driving efficiencies in the Television market are absent, making it unique. If we used insurance to buy TVs I assure you they'd cost 2 to 3 times more than they do today.

So we probably have to do something; I say revamp the insurance model and use some gov't funds to help cover basic care for the poor.

Not true. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to address some medical issues. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to take an aspirin for a caffeine headache. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to know that a sharp pain is serious and needs to be looked at by an expert. You say we don't care about prices... I call BS we sure as hell do care about prices. I'm in an HSA, it's my money. If doctor A wants 2k to pull my tooth and doctor B wants 1k I'm probably gonna think it over. I'm not gonna just run off and spend the extra 1k of my money without having some valid reason that is worth 1k dollars to me.

Further, you can use insurance to buy TVs and it does not cost 3x more to do so.

 

[Bombur]

You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."

Huh? How?

I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.

You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.

I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.

You claim that your ideology is based on:


So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.

Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.

Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.

You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.

Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how your ideology informs your opinions.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.

No you can't make the same claims I have because I didn't make post after post of hyperbolic nonsense concerning government.

When you look at the values of the nation you trump those values with your own. You regularly distorted reality to fit your preconceived world view. I have never even come close to claiming government is the solution to everything.

The entire industrialized world values their citizens enough to provide them with health care when they can't afford it themselves. The US included. Please demonstrate how you incorporate that view into your argument concerning UHC. Use the UHC issue to establish your way of approaching an issue.

 

[RKMBrown]

The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.

Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society. And remaining free market in ideology is not a transition--it maintains the status quo which is irrespective of government. I admit the government helps enforce the status quo but the status quo goes deeper than purely a government policy--many corporations are multi-national and do not have to bow to American policy. It would be a different story if Americans were aware of the sham of corporations and refused to acknowledge their domination, but alas, this won't happen anytime soon since 99.9% tacitly affirm the power of the status quo.

Why make so much stuff up? 99.9 tacitly afirm? Multi-nationals do not have to bow to American policy? Sham of corporations?

So basically where he is anti-government you are anti people getting together to form groups of any kind and especially not under incorporation papers for the purpose of generating income.

Sigh.

 

[dblack]

I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.

You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.

I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.

You claim that your ideology is based on:


So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.



Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.

You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.

Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how your ideology informs your opinions.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.

No you can't make the same claims I have because I didn't make post after post of hyperbolic nonsense concerning government.

Neither do I.

When you look at the values of the nation you trump those values with your own. You regularly distorted reality to fit your preconceived world view. I have never even come close to claiming government is the solution to everything.

And I've never come close to saying we should abolish government. Yet that's what you keep coming back to. Are you seeing the reflection?

The entire industrialized world values their citizens enough to provide them with health care when they can't afford it themselves. The US included. Please demonstrate how you incorporate that view into your argument concerning UHC. Use the UHC issue to establish your way of approaching an issue.

I've fully acknowledged mine is the minority opinion. In your recall of history, has the minority ever been right? The majority ever wrong? If you were in the minority, would you just sit down and shut up?

 

[Bombur]

I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.

You claim that your ideology is based on:


So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.



Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.



Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how your ideology informs your opinions.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.

No you can't make the same claims I have because I didn't make post after post of hyperbolic nonsense concerning government.

Neither do I.

When you look at the values of the nation you trump those values with your own. You regularly distorted reality to fit your preconceived world view. I have never even come close to claiming government is the solution to everything.

And I've never come close to saying we should abolish government. Yet that's what you keep coming back to. Are you seeing the reflection?

The entire industrialized world values their citizens enough to provide them with health care when they can't afford it themselves. The US included. Please demonstrate how you incorporate that view into your argument concerning UHC. Use the UHC issue to establish your way of approaching an issue.

I've fully acknowledged mine is the minority opinion. In your recall of history, has the minority ever been right? The majority ever wrong? If you were in the minority, would you just sit down and shut up?

You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.

You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.

I have already pointed out that I don't believe in an approach based on majority makes right. In fact I have accused you of NOT incorporating the views of others into your position. Saying that you beliefs are in the minority doesn't suggest to me that you are able to take into account the beliefs of others.

You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.

 

[dblack]

You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.

You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.

Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.

You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.

I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?

I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.

 

[KevinWestern]

Not true. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to address some medical issues. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to take an aspirin for a caffeine headache. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to know that a sharp pain is serious and needs to be looked at by an expert.

Maybe I didn’t make my point clear.

When you go to that expert for that sharp pain HE is going to tell YOU what you need to buy. You’re at his mercy, basically. When a car salesman says you “need” to upgrade to premium speakers, you can turn him down without hesitation. But when 3 different doctors tell you that you “need” to buy surgery A and use machine X or you will die, you usually have to take their word for it.

There’s a huge difference. This is why doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and car salesmen do not. We’re at their mercy in many cases.

You say we don't care about prices... I call BS we sure as hell do care about prices. I'm in an HSA, it's my money. If doctor A wants 2k to pull my tooth and doctor B wants 1k I'm probably gonna think it over. I'm not gonna just run off and spend the extra 1k of my money without having some valid reason that is worth 1k dollars to me.

Yes, HSA’s are great, and I like that idea but come on (you know this, I don’t have to explain) – obviously the majority of Americans today go the standard HMO/PPO route, pay their $20 co-pay and that’s it. Doctor A cost $20/visit, doctor B costs $20/visit; emergency room A costs $75/visit, emergency room B costs $75/visit. Price shopping is largely non-existent. This is WELL-documented; there’s no disputing it, dude.

And even considering the HSA, what happens when you have surgery and the major insurance kicks in after your deductible? Are you paying the $100,000 triple bypass surgery out of pocket? Are you comparing pricing then? No, it’s all covered by insurance; you shop ONLY for quality at that point.

Further, you can use insurance to buy TVs and it does not cost 3x more to do so.

I’m talking if the entire TV market was insurance based, costs would be higher overall. Obviously the TV market is not insurance based, lol.

 

[Bombur]

You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.

You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.

Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.

You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.

I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?

I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.

BS

Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.

 

[dblack]

You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.

You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.

Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.

You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.

I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?

I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.

BS

Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.

I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.

 

[Bombur]

Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.



I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?

I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.

BS

Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.

I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.

I rest my case.

 

[dblack]

BS

Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.

I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.

I rest my case.

Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.

 

[Bombur]

I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.

I rest my case.

Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.

You demonstrated rather clearly that you are not willing to look at the facts. You didn't even come close to talking about the health of people or any other facts related to the issue. You made some vague claims that only hinted at possible facts. You referenced politics and special interests to poison the well and then made a completely unsubstantiated claim that it has to be "divorced" from politics.

I can't express enough how completely and totally meaningless I consider your argument to be. It is not just that I disagree with your conclusion. It is that I consider the method in which you derived at your conclusion to be completely useless. You demonstrated the exact flaw I accused you of.