the new health care?

The fact that you have a finite limit to your selflessness makes you inherently selfish, even if marginally. That is to say at certain point you will abandon your altruism and therefore disregard the interest of others in favor of your own. Let me paint you a picture that you will comprehend Joe. At one extreme of the selfish spectrum you have Jesus (zero and therefore completely selfless) and at the other you have the devil (completely selfish); with Humans somewhere in between. You can sugar coat your selfishness with self-interest all you want Joe, still you remain selfish. Further more, you've debased this whole topic to "is oral-sex sex" Joe and no further discussion in this matter is warranted.I agree that the selfishness vs. self-lessness debate has no relevance to healthcare reform, but that just makes me question why you brought it up in the first place. Seems to me that Joe was merely defending himself against a loaded term...which you've here defined in a clear, but ultimately in a manner that is academically and grammatically unsubstantiated. In other words: fascinating opinion, man! The human mind can do craaazy things!

Fun simile though.

I have actually given you deference in this matter Joe in hopes of just moving on yet you still stagger around in the ring all bloodied. The truth is Joe UHC is not debatable under the "promote the general welfare statue" at all. If it was enacted today and you challenged it in the highest court of the land you would lose. Better men have tried and failed (http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html). Similarly I cannot go into court and challenge certain defense appropriations (i.e. rendition and torture expenditure) and expect to win. Certainly you can go into court and argue on the basis of your hyperbole but the truth is there is also a hyperbole that can also be used to argue against common defense so the question becomes what is the point of using a hyperbole in first place to argue against UHC?Doesn't this imply that:

1) All forms of UHC promote general welfare,
2) A healthcare program that does not promote the general welfare is not UHC,

therefore

3) UHC, as you use it, is a loaded term aimed at suggesting what healthcare reform should accomplish, and not an actual descriptive term of any particular individual healthcare bill or act.

I think we can agree that by your logic, the Obama bill is not to be considered UHC, and also that we've yet to hear a realistic idea aimed at implementing UHC in the United States. For all you or I know, your definition of UHC in the US may very well be impossible.

The thing that scares the hell out of me is a scene like this.
LhWhhHjeRi0

The most relevant part starts around 1:25 on the timecode. If you want to know what they're saying click on the video to go to YouTube and turn on Close Captioning. That will give you the subtitles in english.

*Spoilers*
A little context for this scene. A group of performers has put on a play at a local church in Montreal detailing the passion. Unfortunately church officials don't like how the story is depicted by the actors despite the level of success that play has been able to achieve. Eventually security officers show up to stop the performance, which in the scene is at the crucifixion station with the actor portraying Jesus technically tied to the cross.

The effort to break up the play causes a melee which ends in the cross being knocked over with the main character David falling face first on the ground while being attached to the cross. The actors go to the hospital only to be told to wait in an extremely long line. David ends up thinking he's well enough to leave only to die a few hours later.

I agree that the selfishness vs. self-lessness debate has no relevance to healthcare reform, but that just makes me question why you brought it up in the first place. Seems to me that Joe was merely defending himself against a loaded term.


The topic of the selfish nature of man was brought up to highlight that without government mandate some among us would not be interested in paying for UHC. Joe doesn't need to defend himself, and he isn't. He is merely expressing his view on the nature of man.




which you've here defined in a clear, but ultimately in a manner that is academically and grammatically unsubstantiated. In other words: fascinating opinion, man! The human mind can do craaazy things!

Fun simile though.


Academically and grammatically unsubstantiated? Do you speak from experience?

Opinion? You give me far too much credit.


Doesn't this imply that:

1) All forms of UHC promote general welfare,
2) A healthcare program that does not promote the general welfare is not UHC,

therefore

3) UHC, as you use it, is a loaded term aimed at suggesting what healthcare reform should accomplish, and not an actual descriptive term of any particular individual healthcare bill or act.


What an abominable argument. No it does not imply "all forms of UHC promote general welfare." Did you not read my hyperbole reference (i.e a UHC program that promotes eugenics)? UHC is a well defined, information on what it's suppose to be and do is readily available.

I think we can agree that by your logic, the Obama bill is not to be considered UHC, and also that we've yet to hear a realistic idea aimed at implementing UHC in the United States. For all you or I know, your definition of UHC in the US may very well be impossible.
No, we don't agree at all. By my logic, "Obama's bill" is UHC and would pass a constitutional challenge. Note that certain provisions of the bill can be challenged but since we don't have a final bill we can not asses which provisions can be successfully challenged. I suspect the final bill will be solid.

...
If you would be so patient with this idiot he will ... take on your challenge of coming up with suggestions for healtcare reform.
__________________

Funny thing Saden, is that while your rhetorical returns are fast and furious and reflect a man extremely capable parsing rhetorical arguments; these healthcare discussions fail to receive any of your promised ideas or dialogue. No need for parsing here. Feel free to discuss Healthcare Reform IDEAS though.

Funny thing Saden, is that while your rhetorical returns are fast and furious and reflect a man extremely capable parsing rhetorical arguments; these healthcare discussions fail to receive any of your promised ideas or dialogue. No need for parsing here. Feel free to discuss Healthcare Reform IDEAS though.

I'm sorry that it takes time to formulate my own thoughts on a subject so broad as healthcare reform. Unlike congress and Obama I intend to take my sweet time and think things through. How is that for some rhetoric? And the amazing thing is I didn't put any time in into it.

I'm sorry that it takes time to formulate my own thoughts on a subject so broad as healthcare reform. ... And the amazing thing is I didn't put any time in into it.

The interesting thing is how much time you put into pointing out rhetorical flaws, without spending time to think about the actual issue.

What an abominable argument. No it does not imply "all forms of UHC promote general welfare." Did you not read my hyperbole reference (i.e a UHC program that promotes eugenics)? UHC is a well defined, information on what it's suppose to be and do is readily available.Well, then I'm not seeing your loophole. If you are affirming that UHC is not debatable under a "promote general welfare statute", but you are denying that "UHC" necessarily implies that the general welfare is improved, you're making a direct contradiction.

The "readily-available information" on UHC does not necessary promote general welfare. Undoubtably, that would be the intent of pretty much any healthcare reform, but it's aims and goals are far less important than it's ways and means.

Unless I've completely missed your point, you are advocating health care reform that is both 1) universal, and 2) improves the general welfare. These things may very well be contradictory, under most standard definitions of the terms.

Isn't it funny that now because they are having such a hrd time selling their Health Care Reform they have now decided to call it Health Insurance Reform. Now my area is getting hit by comercials making the Heath Insurance Industry the bad guys and they are attacking them. I guess its easier to try and sell health care reform that way instead of presenting the facts of the plan and letting it stand on its own.

Saden: Obama's plan is not UHC its a goverment plan to insure the uninsured. His ulitmate goal is UHC but he will lie and say that's not what he wants at all even though there are tapes of him saying that.

Isn't it funny that now because they are having such a hrd time selling their Health Care Reform they have now decided to call it Health Insurance Reform. Now my area is getting hit by comercials making the Heath Insurance Industry the bad guys and they are attacking them. I guess its easier to try and sell health care reform that way instead of presenting the facts of the plan and letting it stand on its own.

Saden: Obama's plan is not UHC its a goverment plan to insure the uninsured. His ulitmate goal is UHC but he will lie and say that's not what he wants at all even though there are tapes of him saying that.
any proof?

any proof?

YouTube - Barack Obama: I Want Universal Health Care, Not Private Insurance (2007) [Naked Emperor News]