Jump to content

The Terrible Sweal

Members
  • Posts

    1,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Terrible Sweal

  1. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or a severe short-term memory problem?
  2. You're rotten lying scumbag fuck. If you're proud of that, it's just what I'd expect of such a completely degenerate piece of shit. If Greg seems to think its okay for you to lie and abuse others, then his forum is not a wothwhile place to be. You can't match me in argument, so you resort to infamy. You know what that makes you? Low. Weak.
  3. Bored of the pointless snipes of people who cannot manage a real discussion? Yes.
  4. And you conveniently cutout the part where I said, "Exaggerated maybe, but not so far of a stretch as to lack all credit." I ignored it because it was a worthless, opinionated, irrelevant partisan apologia. Why should I acknowledge such tripe?
  5. Only those who cannot afford it would not 'want' to buy full coverage. Certainly we all have budgets and make choices. Some peoples budgets and choices are constrained by low incomes. Maybe that comes as news to you, but tha would mean you live in some kind of cloistered unreal type of existence ad have little to add to conversations about public policy.
  6. Hugo, you are a rotten lying shitbag. GFY.
  7. Because of their self-righteous busybody moralism. But so what? Their morals don't matter one damn bit in public polic questions. Ain't that just too bad. People who find it unpleasant don't need to observe it. My God! Not ... dance music!
  8. I am agrieved by this epiphany that the erudition of my diction is vexatious to your sensibilities. I deeply regret the (apparently pernicious) super-sufficiency of my rebarbative armamentarium. Please accept my condolences for the insuffiency of your vocabulary.
  9. Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that only a lefty could find a way to fault a man for spending time with his own son. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But who did that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look back, Harper was called "Pathetic" for hanging out with his son. Also in one of the first posts a Layton supporter suggested Harper is a "@%^@$(&*" for hanging out with his son instead of going to a parade. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe, but not in the post you took issue with.
  10. Only those who cannot afford it would not 'want' to buy full coverage.
  11. Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that only a lefty could find a way to fault a man for spending time with his own son. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But who did that?
  12. Lower general taxes? That would be a much bigger cash transfer to the rich than the poor. Why not refund all savings to people on an equal basis? Could be good. Regulate, regulate. Sweal, I would never have though that you've got a functionary's view of life. Why would we want to have a single type of core-care? Heck, even eggs don't come in one-size. We already regulate complex and important products. Like, oh, INSURANCE for example. We already provide core standarization in insurance products such as life insurance. Comprehensive healthcare is probably more complex and would justify an more comprehensive standardization of core requirements. If disputes arise, the insured persons are in extremely prejudiced circumstances as compared to the insurers and so greater protection for them is justifiable. Now you kind of make sense, and I even like the "logic" of the $154,000 cut-off.Everybody has enough money to buy health insurance. IOW, everybody is insured. That sounds like the State pays a basic health insurance premium for all and then otherwise gets out of the health business. If we had that, or a variant, Canada's health system would improve. Well, now we might be getting somewhere.
  13. Which means nothing in isolation. If we are getting value for our money, doesn't it make sense to pay these taxes? I certainly concede that a discussion of whether we are getting value for our money is worthwhile, but it seems to me that conservatives approach that question, if at all, with preset conclusions in their minds. 1-We all know that federal and provincial taxes pay for much more than health care alone. 2-Maybe we do have the best health care system in the world. Do you want to have a serious discussion on that? Obviously your hospital is poorly adminstered, or your provincial government is not overseeing them properly, or nurses don't care about people anymore, or the doctor on duty was drunk, or the federal government is not transfering enough money for health care, or you needed complex treatment which required planning and thought, or ... You could be perfectly right. It does not address the problems inherent in two-tier care. 1-It would not mean more supply, it would mean re-directed supply. 2-A couple of hundred dollars a month for every Canadian would be about $72 billion a year. In 2001, at an estimated 9% GDP the cost of healthcare under the current system amounted to about $85 billion. cite By these figures you in effect suggest that market discipline could produce a savings of 13billion per year. (Or alternatively you don't suggest that and simply want better care for yourself.) Obviously, I would doubt such saving are to be found, but let's leave that aside for the moment. What if the government stopped paying for or managing health care and just bought a $2400 policy for every Canadian each year? Would that suit you?
  14. Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong.
  15. Well shame on me. I guess maybe it would be better for me to be less willing to discuss stuff with you.
  16. Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible. Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I pay thousands every month in taxes retard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What's with the insults here. I want an apology. You SAID you paid for health care. NOW you say you meant taxes. Am I supposed to think you mean what you say, or am I supposed to make up for myself what you mean? Or maybe your viciousness comes from being caught on your sleazy spin?
  17. Welfare is not Robin Hood. Since we live in a democracy, taxation is not theft. The policing distinction fails because welfare is exactly an effort by government to provide a value which would be underprovided by the market. I.e. food and shelter to the impoverished. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I suppose I have no problem with the government confiscating a little bit of my money so that poor people get by and for essential services. Many people would rather make their own choices about where their money is spent. So Rather than paying a big chunk of their incomes into a pool and letting the government decide where it gets spent, they'd rather do it themselves on most fronts. Most industrialized societies DO agree on some services they'd rather not deal with on an individual basis: policing, water treatment, sewage, roads... I don't mind some governement intervention for some services but I suppose each society has a value system determine what they consider "essential" and how important equality is. Personally I think equality is a crock. People aren't equal, nor should they recieve equal $$$ if their contribution doesn't warrant it. Class is GODD, not bad. The question for Canadians is: what level of intervention do we accept. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Although the answer to the real question will also answer your question, I don't think your question is the real question. The real question is twofold: what do we value and how best to get it? In other words, intervention or not intervention doesn't overrule effective or not effective.
  18. There are four men: Samuel: a very very poor man Joe: a man on the cusp of poverty Paul: a fantastically rich man, entrusted by Joe to care for Joe's interests Bobo: a fantastically rich man self-appointed to look after Samuel's interests. Bobo demands that Paul take more from Joe to give it to Samuel, while both Paul and Bobo will retain their money. Does anyone think there is any morality in that?
  19. There are four men: Samuel: a very very poor man Joe: a man on the cusp of poverty Paul: a man fairly well off, entrusted by Joe to care for Joe's interests Bobo: a fantastically rich man self-appointed to look after Samuel's interests. Bobo demands that Paul take more from Joe to give it to Samuel, while both Paul and Bobo will retain their money. Does anyone think there is any morality in that?
  20. I mean 'good' to mean whatever an individual respondent considers 'good'.
  21. 1) Abolish the present system of public health care, and any and all government to it. Lower general taxes by the amount saved. 2) Regulate insurers to provide a single type of comprehensive core-care policy coverage to each customer, and regulate the quality of service providers through licensing etc. 3) Institute a dedicated tax on health insurance premiums sufficient to purchase private health insurance for everyone whose income falls below $154,000.
  22. So what would you call what we have in Canada when we have an elected government that has allowed an appointed, and unaccountable judiciary to make law, and order the elected politician's to fix it in a certain amount of time. The way you view the situation is not, in my opinion, correct. The judges are appointed effectively the same way the Governor General and cabinet ministers are appointed: the PM (i.e. the democratically chosen government leader) appoints them. This is democracy because the PM is chosen democratically and constituitionally these are powers accorded that position. The judges accountability is more of a problem. They are not quite completely free to go off on their own hobbyhorses most of the time because they are intensely concerned with their reputations as legalists. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult problem to solve because they courts must be independent in order to fulfill their purpose. In Canada the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction is theoretically unlimited, except for Charter matters where the notwithstanding clause is available.
  23. EXCUSEME! You came up with the Spderman/ Batman thing. Cheap strawmanning tactics are beneath you, kimmy. Or so I thought.
  24. Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible. Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Depending on what income bracket he's in he very well could be paying thousands in healthcare if he lives in Ontario. Dalton McGuinty implemented an additional tax for healthcare, that could cost some people in the province additional thousands of dollars per year on top of their provincial taxes that already go to healthcare on top of their federal taxes that go to healthcare. He said thousands per month.
  25. It is quite natural and proper to be "unwilling to accept" the "solutions" offered by a two-tier system because they are not good or valid 'solutions'. Two-tier health care may provide better care to the few who can afford it, but it will cost more and not meet the needs of people who cannot afford it. They will get inferior care at greater cost. Only economic theory, common sense, and several studies cited by eureka. If you want to dispense with economic theory, common sense, and these studies, then I suppose you're right. Yes. The solution is to manage better and fund better, NOT divert resources to a select few and build in additional profit margins. And two tier healthcare would only bring us closer to that situation. What can you possible mean by a 'fair compromise'? Whose interests are we compromising the public interest for?
×
×
  • Create New...