Why Am I for nationa healthcare?

[iluvburpees]

And the same goes on with the insurance companies. Your meladramticness doesn’t impress me.

You still haven’t answered my question. Shall I assume you accept that you’re wrong?

 

[aspawloski4th]

You still haven’t answered my question. Shall I assume you accept that you’re wrong?

I am sorry I thought I did. What is your question? You make sneid comments, but the rest of us are just supposed to sit and speak when you speak to us. That isn’t going to fly around here.

 

[iluvburpees]

I am sorry I thought I did. What is your question? You make sneid comments, but the rest of us are just supposed to sit and speak when you speak to us. That isn’t going to fly around here.

I apologize if I tend to be unduly sharp. It is the way that I’ve always been.

However, you have still been incredibly illogical throughout this whole thread. My question, in case you happened to miss it, is:

-If abortion cannot be supported by Catholics, then no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.
-Abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.
-Therefore, no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.

Do you agree with the above? If not, point out the apparent fallacy/fallacies.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I apologize if I tend to be unduly sharp. It is the way that I’ve always been.

However, you have still been incredibly illogical throughout this whole thread. My question, in case you happened to miss it, is:

-If abortion cannot be supported by Catholics, then no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.
-Abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.
-Therefore, no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.

Do you agree with the above? If not, point out the apparent fallacy/fallacies.

Post#95 is where I answered it, and that not the way your origially worded the question. Read my end to that post, I see that type of thing going on more than anything else.

 

[iluvburpees]

Post#95 is where I answered it, and that not the way your origially worded the question. Read my end to that post, I see that type of thing going on more than anything else.

It’s a lot more clear if you simply accept or deny my second syllogism. Again,

-If abortion cannot be supported by Catholics, then no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.
-Abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.
-Therefore, no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.

Do you agree with the above? If not, point out the apparent fallacy/fallacies.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ultimately they have more money than anybody else without worrying about netting a profit. Because of the floating currecy system, if they don’t have enough money they can print it. There, quit badgering me!

Ok, despite the numerous misconceptions you have about basic economic concepts like inflation, the federal budget deficit, and the relationship between taxation and market growth, I think I’ve isolate two things you’re trying to say that relate to this debate.

First, you’re trying to say that the government is the best option to supply healthcare for people because they have the most money and, presumably, can afford it.

Even if I accept your premise that the government has gobs of money, it still doesn’t explain why we still have problems like homelessness, hunger, joblessness, etc. I mean, if the government has all this money, why can’t it seem to solve other problems?

Second, you’re trying to say that the government’s access to money means that it doesn’t have to worry about making a profit.

Do you think that an efficient program can be born of an organization that has unlimited funding and does not have to concern itself with losing money? Before you respond, scale that down a little bit and think about the stereotypical “Trust fund baby” for a few minutes.

I made TWO points here, I would like you to respond to both.

 

[aspawloski4th]

It’s a lot more clear if you simply accept or deny my second syllogism. Again,

-If abortion cannot be supported by Catholics, then no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.
-Abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.
-Therefore, no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.

Do you agree with the above? If not, point out the apparent fallacy/fallacies.

I already posted it. Read #95. I dont answer the same questions over and over my answer is in post # 95. Thats easier for me.

 

[iluvburpees]

I already posted it. Read #95. I dont answer the same questions over and over my answer is in post # 95. Thats easier for me.

I’m sorry, but any answer you gave in that post isn’t clear at all.

Why can you not simply say yes or no to the syllogism? Surely it cannot be that much of a hassle.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Ok, despite the numerous misconceptions you have about basic economic concepts like inflation, the federal budget deficit, and the relationship between taxation and market growth, I think I’ve isolate two things you’re trying to say that relate to this debate.

First, you’re trying to say that the government is the best option to supply healthcare for people because they have the most money and, presumably, can afford it.

Even if I accept your premise that the government has gobs of money, it still doesn’t explain why we still have problems like homelessness, hunger, joblessness, etc. I mean, if the government has all this money, why can’t it seem to solve other problems?

Second, you’re trying to say that the government’s access to money means that it doesn’t have to worry about making a profit.

Do you think that an efficient program can be born of an organization that has unlimited funding and does not have to concern itself with losing money? Before you respond, scale that down a little bit and think about the stereotypical “Trust fund baby” for a few minutes.

I made TWO points here, I would like you to respond to both.

one. Yes As for the other problems they in RECENT history havent put thier mind to it. As for joblessness, one should be required to go to school till the age of 21 for starters.
Second. yes and no. Insurance might be more eficient, but denys coverage all the time thus killing people. Efficiency is nice, but shouldnt get in the way of doing what is medically right.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I already posted it. Read #95. I dont answer the same questions over and over my answer is in post # 95. Thats easier for me.

Actually you didn’t.
You said you believe abortion is evil, but that didn’t answer the question.

The question is if you, as a person who believes abortion is evil, could support a bill that forces you to pay for people to have abortions.

Since you mentioned a concern about easy answers I would like to point out that this is a simple yes or no question. Typing “yes” or “no” is easier than typing a long explanation of how you already answered the question.

So which is it? Yes or no?

 

[aspawloski4th]

I’m sorry, but any answer you gave in that post isn’t clear at all.

Why can you not simply say yes or no to the syllogism? Surely it cannot be that much of a hassle.

No less clear than what you post. I said I am very anti abortion.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

one. Yes As for the other problems they in RECENT history havent put thier mind to it. As for joblessness, one should be required to go to school till the age of 21 for starters.
Second. yes and no. Insurance might be more eficient, but denys coverage all the time thus killing people. Efficiency is nice, but shouldnt get in the way of doing what is medically right.

Can you cite a reliable source of the number of people that die because they were denied coverage?

And I believe the #1 source of denials is Medicare.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Actually you didn’t.
You said you believe abortion is evil, but that didn’t answer the question.

The question is if you, as a person who believes abortion is evil, could support a bill that forces you to pay for people to have abortions.

Since you mentioned a concern about easy answers I would like to point out that this is a simple yes or no question. Typing “yes” or “no” is easier than typing a long explanation of how you already answered the question.

So which is it? Yes or no?

Well I had health insurance pilicies I later found out pay for abortion. Should I have no had those then? Every employer I had had only one policy availble. It was either that way or the highway.

 

[iluvburpees]

No less clear than what you post. I said I am very anti abortion.

You’re still referring to the first syllogism, and are completely avoiding the second! How many times must I ask you to answer the second, and not the first?

If you won’t simply answer it, then continuing this discussion is useless, because it is pretty much the entire debate

 

[aspawloski4th]

Can you cite a reliable source of the number of people that die because they were denied coverage?

And I believe the #1 source of denials is Medicare.

My 45 year old wife with medicare hasnt been denied. And the disease she got coverage on isn’t even officially in their books. Psoriatic arthraitis.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

My 45 year old wife with medicare hasnt been denied. And the disease she got coverage on isn’t even officially in their books. Psoriatic arthraitis.

Anecdotal evidence. Just because your wife hasn’t been denied, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen to others.

 

[aspawloski4th]

It’s a lot more clear if you simply accept or deny my second syllogism. Again,

-If abortion cannot be supported by Catholics, then no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.
-Abortion cannot be supported by Catholics.
-Therefore, no Catholic can support a government plan which includes forced funding for abortion.

Do you agree with the above? If not, point out the apparent fallacy/fallacies.

yes. The obertive word is forced. There will still be plans not supporting it. Where is your compaling about employer healcare plans supporting abortion? The surrenbt system is forcing someone here posting on these threads to slowly die, but there no complaint about that, except to effectively tell her to shut up when she comments on that.

 

[Oscarthecat]

one. Yes As for the other problems they in RECENT history havent put thier mind to it. As for joblessness, one should be required to go to school till the age of 21 for starters.
Second. yes and no. Insurance might be more eficient, but denys coverage all the time thus killing people. Efficiency is nice, but shouldnt get in the way of doing what is medically right.

So, the problem is that the government just hasnt put their mind to solving all those other problems?

Are you aware that the proposed healthcare bill will also deny access to care in certain cases when the cost is deemed disproportionate to the desired benefit?

Why is it ok for the government to deny benefits to save money, but not ok for insurance companies?

 

[aspawloski4th]

Anecdotal evidence. Just because your wife hasn’t been denied, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen to others.

Sometimes the best kind of evidence, Her disease is very easy to deny compared to most, it isn’t in the manual! There denial rate may be high, but I’m willing to beter their application rate is higher than anyone elses also. Goes back to" figures lie and liars figure’".

 

[Oscarthecat]

Well I had health insurance pilicies I later found out pay for abortion. Should I have no had those then? Every employer I had had only one policy availble. It was either that way or the highway.

Yes or no. Simple answer.
Just a yes or a no.