Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
So if by "getting away from argument analysis" you mean reinterpreting what has been written to fit your argument, changing the argument when it fits your needs and ignoring inconvenient evidence and logical thought, then congratulations, you've succeeded... in utterly destroying what most rational people consider discourse.
You have to realize what you are avoiding is called the "Socratic method" and it is what all real public discourse is based on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
I've come the the conclusion having a reasonable conversation with you on political or social issues is impossible. In future political/cultural threads, I'm simply going to ignore you. |
Haha ok.. that's your choice. What I was chosing not to respond to, however, was pointles rederick that wouldn't have led to any meaningful discussion. Lets go back and look at the rest of the post that I was refering to.
Quote:
|
Game, at this point your logic is so scattered, contradictory and absent minded to me that I can't continue. At one point you seem to agree with my points in theory but then argue against what you had previously agreed with.
|
My untyped responce to that would be something along the lines of "Ok and...?". I'm not argueing against something I previously agreed with, and I already disproved that when you brought up your so-called examples of this.
Quote:
|
When we mention real problems with the current legislation, you just say they'll avoid them when the actual legislation isn't overcoming any of them.
|
Once again, nothing meaningful can come from this quote.. My reply to this at most would be: "'It didn't work there, so its not going to work here' is no more or less of a legit arguement then saying 'We can learn from their mistakes.'" Which I said before.
You're discussing in theory why you believe it won't work, which I haven't really challenged other then discussing in theory why it can work.
Quote:
|
In the end, I have no idea what your ideas on the subject are, beyond being for public options "damn the torpedoes", with all arguments leading to that end regardless of leaps of reality that must be taken to get there. Public healthcare does not default GOOD. There must be real solutions and challenges overcome, not simply a unthinking movement toward an immediate goal.
|
Once again another thing that I addressed in the last post I made but didn't quote directly. But I'll just quote myself for the sake of not having you scroll back up again.
"Ok to clarify this, there's two ways I see private health insurance going if the public option is created.
1) Private insurance will try to compete with the public option by offering better quality at a more reasonable price.
2) Private insurance will not be able to compete with the quality that the public option offers at it's price, so it will move into being something only available to wealthy people.
If option one happens, and private insurance becomes more affordable, and they become more focused on quality and legitamate coverage.. then the health care system is fixed. Even if the public option sucks enough that private is still viable, it will force private insurance to make a change for a good to keep their base.
If option two happens, and private insurance pretty much dies and becomes something that only wealthy people will dish out the money for. Then it just proves that private insurance was broken to begin with. And I'd be the first to say good riddens.
The way I see it, if the public option isn't better then what is offered now.. or if the private companies are willing to make the changes they need to compete.. then people will not switch to it. In the end its an option.. if its not a better option then we have now, then there's no reason to switch."
In my opininon its win-win, if its relitively bad compared to what private insurance is willing to offer, it will only be for extreme cases that private inurance refuses to touch. But, if private insurance doesn't get their act together enough to compete, then it will become something bigger and private insurance will likely be pushed into something that the wealthy use only.