apple0154
MEOW
Sure, that's why we hear about wealthy people traveling to Mexico and Europe for various treatments. And what about the citizens here who can't afford that care? What happens to them, Dixie?
Jarhead's delusional view on Obamacare...
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Sure, that's why we hear about wealthy people traveling to Mexico and Europe for various treatments. And what about the citizens here who can't afford that care? What happens to them, Dixie?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why don't you just shut the fuck up? You obviously don't know what the hell you're even talking about, you're just yammering a bunch of repeated nonsense you've heard from some goddamn half-witted socialist.
In Great Britain, (the closest thing to a government like ours with NHC) if the government decides you aren't worth spending the money on, you don't get the treatment. They can do that because they are Great Britain, and their citizens don't have the US Constitution guaranteeing them inalienable rights. In many of the other former soviet bloc countries who have NHC, the people do not have the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, that is a right we have in America, therefore, over there, they have to accept whatever their government gives them, and they have no recourse for complaint.
By "quality" I don't mean manicured lawns at cancer centers. I mean advanced technology and the best doctors in the world... yes, I said the world... you see, all of these foreign countries you cite as having splendid health care coverage? Well, their doctors leave and come to America to practice medicine. I wonder why that is the case, if the health care systems in their countries are so great? Also, why do the prime ministers and dignitaries come to America for medical treatment, instead of getting it in their own country? By "quality" health care, I mean the fact that we average one CT scanner for every 70 Americans, while other NHC system countries are around 1 in 20,000. The average time between diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in America is less than two weeks, in your socialized medicine countries, it's over 6 months! Kidney transplants in America... 6 months, socialized medicine countries... 10 years. Across the board, American health care is superior to anything else out there. It isn't even close.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Wrong, numbnuts. "Being" in no way implies or entails a physical presence, nor do i interpret it to do so. Where the hell did you get the notion that i thought God was a physical being like a man or a horse? Did you not comprehend my point about God existing outside the parameters of logic because God is defined as existing everywhere and everywhen? Do you know of men who exist everywhere? How about omnipresent horses? How many of those can you point out? I just love discussing philosophy with wing nuts who never so much as audited an intro course, and who think they can just bullshit their way through.
Being implies existence and self-awareness only. That's why the concept of a physical being exists; to differentiate it from a spiritual or non-corporeal being. The existence of the former can be proven or demonstrated objectively, while the latter must be accepted on faith. Is any of this getting through?
Key point #1: NOTHING can be proven scientifically. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The sciences and the scientific method were developed to discover the whys and wherefores of the physical world that were not amenable to proof. In order for something to be proven, it must hold true in all cases without exception. Science can't do that, nor do scientists claim the ability to prove. "Scientific proof" is a term favored by those who have no clue as to the nature of science or logic. Like yourself, for example, for when you claim, "Lots of things can't be proven logically or scientifically, black holes, for instance. Can you explain them logically?" your voice becomes increasingly muffled as your head goes further up your ass, and speaking of rectal-cranial insertion, your very first line in your idiotic response was, and I quote: "Nonsense. Gravity is everywhere." Fucking brilliant. Are we to assume from this comment that you think that gravity is self-aware, that gravity is God, or that gravity has anything to do with logic? Neither I, nor anyone else can explain black holes logically. Logic is not the language of science. I am, however, familiar with the current scientific explanation for black holes, and I'll be happy to decrease your ignorance at a future time. Where and when did I claim to know the scientific explanation for dark matter? Nice straw man. in fact your entire post is either straw man or non sequitur. in no way do you address, let alone successfully debunk, my positions.
Key point #2: "Logical" does not mean "true." Truth and logic are separate concepts. A logical argument is a valid argument, meaning the rules of logic have been followed correctly in making the argument, but a valid argument is only true if its premises are true, which means they must either be previously proven or self-evident. No matter how solid and clever the structure of your argument is, false premises will always lead to a false conclusion. There are four possibilities for the outcome of an argument: valid and true (bingo, or as philosophers are wont to say: Quod erat demonstrandum, or thus it is shown, abbreviated QED), valid and false (close, but no cigar...you know your formal logic, but you don't know dick about your premises), invalid and true (you lucked out...stumbling onto the truth despite a fucked up argument...but you get no credit for lucking out), and finally, your category, invalid and false. Virtually all of your arguments are invalid and false, because you don't know shit from apple butter.
For evidence of this, I refer you to your inane conflation of "illogical" and "untrue," and your moronic attempt to saddle ME with YOUR misconceptions. Not only do I not equate illogical and untrue. I never used the term illogical in referring to God. I said if he existed as defined he was non-logical, meaning he exists outside the logical framework, and is therefore not bound by it. Illogical people (like you), exist inside the logical framework, but don't have a clue how it works, and then you compound your foolishness by trying to bullshit your way past someone who has studied (and aced) the subject matter at a school consistently ranked among the best in the country. As would be expected in such a circumstance, you're getting your ass handed to you, whether you realize it or not. I'm going to let you in on a little secret...all this stuff I'm slapping you around with now...I didn't make any of it up. None of it is original thought on my part. It's all well over 1,000 years old. Came from a guy named Aristotle, maybe you've heard of him. Now he wasn't right about everything, and some of his conclusions strain credulity, and for me to claim otherwise would be to engage in the fallacy known as the appeal to authority. but his logic system is still the gold standard, even after all these years.
So when you cross logical swords with me (and as with damn yankee, you guys insist on using your rubber knives, with all the success and awareness of your pitiful plight demonstrated by the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.)
"I am invincible!!" ~Dixie
"You're a loony." ~Zoombwaz
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
Not one link. No supporting evidence. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. How can there be supporting evidence to such nonsense?
Do some research, Dixie. It is you who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Here's some sites with the country followed by the length of life.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Canada 81.23
United Kingdom 79.01
United States 78.11
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Male_Life_Expectancy.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Male_Life_Expectancy.png/220px-Male_Life_Expectancy.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/54/Male_Life_Expectancy.png/220px-Male_Life_Expectancy.png
Canada 80.7
United Kingdom 79.4
United States 78.2
http://www.os-connect.com/pop/p1.htm
Canada 76.02
United Kingdom 74.97
United States 74.24
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934746.html
Canada 80.34
United Kingdom 78.70 and the entire European Union 78.70
United States 78.00
And finally, (Excerpt)Babies born in the United States in 2005 are expected to live an average of 77.9 years, according to a 2007 study by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. That's an increase of more than 30 years since 1900, when Americans were expected to live just 47.3 years [source: Medline Plus]. While the increase is impressive, America is not at the top of the list for life expectancy. Actually, the United States ranks behind 41 other countries.(End)
http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/life-expectancy.htm
You're being lied to, Dixie. The people against government health care don't give a damn if you live.
christiefan915
Catalyst
"A 49-year-old woman collapsed and died on the floor of a waiting room at a Brooklyn psychiatric hospital and lay there for more than an hour as employees ignored her, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, which on Tuesday released surveillance camera video of the incident.
Esmin Green was involuntarily admitted to the psychiatric emergency department of Kings County Hospital Center on June 18 for what the hospital describes as "agitation and psychosis."
Upon her admission, Green waited nearly 24 hours for treatment, said the civil liberties union, which was among the groups filing suit against the facility last year seeking improved conditions for patients."
Red, white and blue colored glasses, offered by the Tea bags and others who declare the USA as sound as the Titanic!
And many still will, the CBO estimates that even when this is full blown in 2020, over 5% of the population will still be uncovered. It doesn't do what it was sold to the foolish for...
It is designed to fail so that the "desperate" will be ever willing to fall into government care systems controlled by an over bloated Executive branch.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Because the word "BEING" means "to exist in a state of being!" MORON!
You shouldn't discuss anything with anyone... everywhen! MORON! No, I don't know of men, horses, or any physical being that is omnipresent. God is not a physical being! Therefore, your "parameters of logic" regarding physical beings, simply do not apply here! You argue, that means God defies logic, and regarding the physical realm, I agree, but God is not physical! Physical parameters of logic would dictate your ignorant head is full of blood and (retarded) brain matter, and nothing else. But we understand enough principles of science to know that tiny electromagnetic pulses are firing on neurons inside all of that goop, to cause you to experience "thoughts" and "ideas" and "cognizance" (you do have those, don't you?) Do the "parameters of logic" dictate you don't really have thoughts or ideas? We can't see them... we have no proof of what they are... we can take your word on faith that you experience them, and we can see evidence that we believe might be the source, but it's difficult to apply physical standards of logic to something that isn't physical in nature.
Nope... sounds like you've constructed a logical fallacy. Do you accept your thoughts exist? Prove them! Show me your thought at this precise moment! Think about the first Christmas you can remember.... Does it exist now? You can relive moments in your life as if you are there again... do those moments exist physically now? They did at one time, didn't they? Okay, now fantasize about the Perfect Christmas... does it exist? Can you prove what you imagined? Does it fit the "parameters of logic" you keep trying to apply to God? Do you simply have FAITH that you experienced a thought? Except for some electromagnetic firing between neurons, do you have any physical proof of your thoughts? Perhaps your thoughts caused an emotional feeling for you, happiness or sadness.. can you show us physical proof of those? Do they defy your "parameters of logic" and require you to have "faith" that you believe you experienced them?
I absolutely agree with this 110%!!!
You have no scientific proof to conclude anything related to origin of life, existence of a supreme spiritual entity, or creator of life, the universe, or anything else. NONE. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada! In order to believe that to be the case, you must have FAITH. There is no other logical approach.
Shut up, idiot! You don't even make any sense anymore. You said the concept of God was illogical, then attempted to apply physical principles to God and principles of specific physical logic that do not apply, and have never applied to non-physical entities. LOGIC is simply the study of arguments. To say that something is not logical, is to say there is only one side to the argument, and there is no room to study any other. This conclusiveness is actually the antithesis of Science, as science seeks answers and constantly studies the arguments.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
"A 49-year-old woman collapsed and died on the floor of a waiting room at a Brooklyn psychiatric hospital and lay there for more than an hour as employees ignored her, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, which on Tuesday released surveillance camera video of the incident.
Esmin Green was involuntarily admitted to the psychiatric emergency department of Kings County Hospital Center on June 18 for what the hospital describes as "agitation and psychosis."
Upon her admission, Green waited nearly 24 hours for treatment, said the civil liberties union, which was among the groups filing suit against the facility last year seeking improved conditions for patients."
you brought this up for a reason.......are you of the mindset that the new obamacare legislation will fix this?
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Okay, your head is farther up your backside than even I imagined.
1) In re: your definition of being. You can't have the word to be defined in the definition. There is no debate or disagreement on this. It renders the definition meaningless.
2) So God is not flesh and blood, and therefore defies the parameters of logic? What he hell do you think I've been trying to tell you? Do you know how to read? I specifically referred to the differentiation between physical beings and non-corporeal beings. Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it.
3) I'm building myself a fallacy? Which one? BTW, prove thought? Bwaaahahahaaaa. Thought is self-evident, you pinhead. One does not have to prove that which is self-evident. Thought is the most basic premise. Cogito ergo sum. I was right. You've never taken and passed an intro philosophy course. You're arguing about terms and concepts that are definitional.
4) Science requires no faith. When I say there is no such thing as scientific proof, that does not imply or entail that science is based on faith. Faith in this context is defined as a belief held absent empirical objective evidence. Science is based on the amassing of empirical evidence, such that a preponderance of that evidence supports a given scientific theory, which is not less than a fact, is not a guess, but is the framework that ties together a body of observed facts into an overarching principle, and since those principles are supported by years of observation, experimentarion, and peer review, faith is not involved.
5) I never said God was illogical, and I defy you to find and quote any sentence or phrase or dependent clause in which I made that claim. I said (correctly, I might add) that God is non-logical, which is NOT the same thing as illogical. Illogical is what you are, and your insistence that I said God is illogical is a straw man argument, a fallacy, and illogical. I would recommend an essay by Soren Kierkegaard, a phenomenologist Danish philosopher from the early 20th century and a devout Christian. If memory serves, it is entitled "Against Proofs in Religion," and is in large part the source of my argument, but I doubt it would be worthwhile for you to read it, because based on the illogical crap you have posted here, the essay in question is way the hell over your head.
Give up. You're making a complete fool of yourself.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
My head is on my shoulders, just like you head is on your shoulders. It is physically impossible for my head to be up my ass, therefore it is illogical.
Yes, there is a debate and disagreement on this, very many definitions contain words and root words similar to the actual word being defined. It's not uncommon or against any rule of language that I am familiar with. "BEING" means literally... "TO BE!" In the context we are using it, it means in the state of physical being. Nothing is rendered meaningless, although you have been rendered ignorant of language.
Oh, I know how to use it, and I can look any word up at Dictionary.com... so let's stop being silly, shall we? God is not flesh and blood, God is not a physical being or of the physical realm, and no one I know of who believes in God has ever believed or argued that to be the case. So why do you think you can apply physical logic to a non-physical entity? Why do you think the application of physical logic to something non-physical, can even be considered in validating the presence of the non-physical? I cited several examples of non-physical things we know to exist, but have no physical proof of, because they are not bound by physical logic. This does not mean these things are "illogical!" Logic literally means "study of arguments" ...go look that up, it's a Greek word. To maintain that something is "illogical" or "non-logical" (same thing), is to argue there is no argument to support it whatsoever.
God is self-evident to a great many believers. You are failing here.
And it should be pointed out, there is absolutely NO empirical objective evidence there is not a God or a Creator. In order to maintain such a BELIEF, requires FAITH! Furthermore, the belief in anything not provable within the confines of the physical realm, also requires FAITH.
Whenever you have drawn conclusion, you stop practicing science and begin practicing faith. Sorry... just the way that works dude! "FACTS" are things that can not ever be disputed, there is no need for further examination or evaluation, the "FACT" has been determined. If you draw a conclusion based on science, it is no different than a conclusion drawn on faith. Science does not draw conclusions, it continues to ask questions.
Post #23 in this thread:
zoom: The reason I asked was that the only thing incorrect about Jarod's statement was that he qualified it with almost. The fact is that the statement, "Nothing about God can be proven," is not only true, it can't be debated. Proof only exists in logic and some, but not all math disciplines, and in all cases is rigidly limited with a set of inviolable parameters that limit the scope of what can be proved or disproved, and as the concept of God is defined, that concept lies well outside the limits of proof. The concept of God is therefore non-logical, and logic is simply inadequate to the task of establishing proof or disproof of the existence or nonexistence of God.
Did you forget you posted that, or what??? It's right there, under your name, and it clearly states you believe the concept of God is "non-logical" or illogical.
Yes, "non-logical" is a synonym of "illogical" ...they mean the exact same thing! The grammatical prefix "il" means "non" according to every book on the English language you can find. So where you get the birdbrain notion that it means something else here, I have no idea... maybe the same place you get the birdbrain notion that "being" means something besides in a state of physical being?
Really? You think so? I don't see it that way at all.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Can you really be this obtuse? The quality of health care offered to the average American is shit. What kind of moron brags about something that is not available to him, but only to the wealthy and foreign dignitaries? You're comparing apples to oranges, or better yet a Bentley (the health care for the rich of which you are so enamored) to a Honda Accord (the universal health care offered by the 36 countries that rank ahead of us in providing health care of all of their citizens.
Important note: we are a member of the G-20, the organization of nations with developed economies, but we are ranked 37th in providing health care to all of our citizens. That means not only are the other 19 developed nations ahead of us in delivery of health care, but so are 17 developing nations. Our life expectancy is well below every other developed nation, our infant mortality rate is third world, and there are only two statistical categories in which we lead the world, The first is cost. Yes, I know the citizens of those countries pay higher taxes than we do in order to get their universal coverage, but in those countries there are no private health insurance premiums to deal with. The fact remains that we pay double in premiums and taxes what our nearest publicly insured competitor charges their citizens in taxes only, so switching to a universal health care system would cost us less, not more, contrary to what the liars in the GOP and their retarded supporters would have us believe. And the fact remains, as Apple pointed out that NO country which has abandoned medicine for profit in favor of a publicly funded universal program has ever gone back to the health care-for profit model.
The second statistical category in which we lead the world is the number of personal bankruptcies filed due to catastrophic illness or accident. In the US, the cost of catastrophic illness is th #1 cause of personal bankruptcies. Do you know how many people in universal health care countries lose their investments, savings, and homes due to catastrophic illness? None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. El zippo. In all the countries combined. Not a goddamned one.
Now let's return to your batshit-crazy, dumber than a bag of hammers claim that our health care is superior to all the publicly funded systems, or as you so stupidly put it, "every one of them pale in comparison to the quality of health care offered in America." God, I almost peed in my pants from laughing when I read that steaming load of horseshit (one has to laugh...the only other option is screaming). And you have the unmitigated temerity to call Jarod delusional? Holy shit, what a butt-ignorant, flat-lined learning curve douche bag you are! The health care offered to the plutocrats is fucking irrelevant, you arrogant dipshit. You are bragging about the Bentley you are not even allowed to touch, let alone ride in or, God forbid, drive. You have somehow failed to notice that the health care delivered to the average citizen in this country is not only far from being the Bentley of your fevered imagination, it isn't even the Honda Accord enjoyed by the citizens of every other developed nation. It's a thirty-five-year-old Chrysler K-car with a transmission that slips, an engine that burns a quart of oil for every gallon of gas it consumes, is running on three bald Continental steel-belted tires with the steel mesh showing through the sidewalls plus the doughnut spare, has an alignment which is so far gone that it crabs down the road at nearly a 30-degree angle, and if you let go of the steering wheel, it veers into oncoming traffic. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot the paint job: it's that lovely purple color that was not UV-resistant, and didn't just fade, but virtually boiled away down to the primer, leaving gray and orange blotches on the hood, roof, and trunk lid; the kind of paint job that would make Earl Schieb suffer a massive coronary in mid-commercial, saying, "Riiiight. We'll paint any car for HOLY SHIT!, what the fuck happened to that pain job?" And we're being forced to lease it at twice the monthly cost of a brand-new Honda Accord hatchback. And finally, if you have a single accident with your K-car shit-box, they take it away from you, and if you've ever had a pre-existing accident, they will refuse to lease you one in the first place.
The only delusional thinking being done around here is yours, so you should STFU and listen to those who know far more than you do, a group whose membership not only includes Apple, Jarod and myself, (among others too numerous to list), but probably my dog as well.
You have no business calling anybody else a pinhead, as your overtaxed, intellectually-challenged lizard brain is barely up to the task of maintaining your autonomic functions, let alone formulating a cogent, coherent, reasonable argument. How do you manage to stick your foot in your mouth so often, given that your head is planted for far and so firmly up your ass?
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
It was in response to Dixie's comment "No one has "died in the streets" due to lack of medical care in America since about 1946, when they passed the Hill-Burton Act. Even prior to that, going back to the very first hospital in America, founded by Benjamin Franklin, medical care has been largely 'charitable' and available to the public at large."
It illustrates the fact that people do indeed "die in the streets" from lack of medical care in the current system. I can't predict what will happen when the health care legislation is fully implemented but doubt it could be any worse than what's already going on.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
OMG. "Head up ass" is a metaphor. Anybody who insists on trying to logically deconstruct a metaphor has no real point to make, way too much time on his hands, and can't decide whether to grasp at straws or pick nits. This is all the response you'll get from me on this non-issue. Next.
Another non issue. If you claim that God exists, then he must be, and is therefore a non-corporeal being, meaning he is a being not of flesh and blood, which has been my point all along. You are the one insisting that "a being" must have a physical presence. As an agnostic, that is the position I hold, but we are arguing whether one can prove anything about God. Your position is that God exists, and if one accepts his existence, one must concede that as the creator/Prime Mover of the universe, God must have had some notion of what he wanted in a universe. He sent Moses down from the mountain with "these 15 (crash), 10 commandments," one of which states "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Me. The declaration of existence and self-awareness. The Hebrew Bible said God gave His name as YHWH, which varously translates to "I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM", and the early Christian church said that God called Himself "I AM." Am is the first person singular form of the verb "to be." By naming Himself "I AM", God is declaring His Being, despite not being flesh and blood. So when you say "Being is a state of physical being, it is not only an illogical, circular argument, but GOD HIMSELF SAYS YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT. Normally, I would agree that "being" requires a physicsal presence, because i'm an agnostic, and physical beings are the only kind I know. But you can't use that definition of being, because you believe in God, and as a believer in God, you belive in the existence of a non-corporeal, non-flesh-and-blood being, who Himself says He is a being. Don't pick nits with me on the definition of being, Bubba. Your own God says I'm right and you're wrong, thank you very little, fuck you very much. By the way, if you keep on defying Him by denying His Existence as a being, he might get pissed off and decide to make another of your statements wrong by turning that "head up ass" metaphor into a reality. Physically impossible? In God all things are possible.
Next.
Non-logical is not synonymous with illogical, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Illogical means invalid reasoning, failing to make a logical argument. Non-logical means outside the limits of logic, and the rules of logic don't apply, and since the rules of logic don't apply outside the limits of logic, the non-logical isn't illogical. Quod erat fucking demonstrandum