Best not to dismiss arguments out of hand
More and more, partisans of the left are dismissing arguments against their positions by declaring the questions already resolved.
At least once a day, letter writers, columnists and politicians will proclaim “It is now beyond dispute that ... ,” “There is no longer any question that ... ” or “The vast majority of scientists (or educators or voters) now agree that ... ”
This tactic has been used to “prove” that Bush stole the election in Florida, or Bush lied about Iraq, or global warming is a man-made phenomenon. It would be nice if the zealous promoters of these agendas stopped to contemplate that the healthiest thing for a democracy is a reasoned debate on all issues.
Declaring many of them off-limits is a prescription for experiencing the days of the ’60s in China when all the information one had to know was explained in Mao’s Little Red Book.
Ambrose P. Rikeman, Aurora
Actually, the left is very fond of the way Mao ran China, and would love to do the same here. Rational discussion is NOT the left's forte.
Posted by clyde on May 24, 2007 02:38 AMNor is rational discussion is right's forte. Just how is the left fond to Mao?
Posted by D on May 24, 2007 05:42 AMAgreed D.
Seems to me the righties are the ones favoring a Mao type government.
d and conserative media I guess you forgot or just ignored hillary's socalist form of medical care. single payer as it is called is socalized medicine no matter how you dress it up it will cost more and do less.
hillary has already said that once elected she will take the oil company profits for government programs. welcome chairman hill.
It's called "Doublespeak", or "Newspeak". If the right-wingnuts say it, it is, of course, "right". Coming from anyone they slam and slur as being "left", or "commie", or "socialist", it is, of course, "wrong".
Doesn't matter a bit if the person saying something really IS NOT from anyone of the epithets used. The right-wingnuts just have to say he/she is. That makes it "right". And when a right-wingnut says it's right it's "right". But anything said by the "left" is "wrong", unless it is being said by the right, and that makes it "right".
Get it now? A fellow by name of Goebbels amplified on the idea back in the 1930s; and it's been used by the "right" ever since.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 24, 2007 07:42 AM And, don't forget, Joe Macarthy was right...VERY right.
Non illigitimi corborundum.
Hang in there lefties, we'll be proven truly American yet again.
Almost 20 years after the fall of Communism and the right is still using the same, tired slurs. Well the silver lining in the nuclear mushroom cloud that is the Bush Administration is that the Republican agenda is dead.
Posted by Sean on May 24, 2007 07:52 AMI always thought that Republicans believed in accountability. Bush and his ilk have made a major mess and all the GOP does is explain it away and make the excuses for him. What happened to accountability?
Posted by just sayin' on May 24, 2007 08:21 AMjust sayin'
Accountability: That's what totes up on the bottom line after you've been visited by, and collected everything offered from, Abramoff (sp?) and the rest of the lobbyists.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 24, 2007 08:28 AM7:41,
You perfectly illustrate the procedure as practiced on the right. You dismiss single-payer health care without any evidence, just on your say-so. On the other side of the argument, we have only to point to virtually every other health care system in the industrialized world. Those systems achieve better results at far lower cost. Look it up and try dealing with facts, not conjectures.
Posted by Docjay on May 24, 2007 08:31 AMDocjay,
My wife is recently naturalized citizen that comes from Russia. You want evidence of how socialized medicine does not work? I'll give you a small picture. I'm sure though it work in this country, right? So you get sick, say with a flu bug that won't go away, you go to the doctor, you sit in the wating room for 5-1/2 hours, then when you finally get in to see the doctor they take your temperature, give you some aspirin and tell you to come back next week if the symptoms do not go away. Next week the symptoms are worse, you go to the doctor again, this time same wait, but now they check you into the hospital. 2 days later they operate on your abdomen and find cancerous tumors all over your internal organs. They sew you back up, don't tell you what the prolem is and send you home. The do however tell your oldest child what the problem is and tell him not to tell you because it will "shorten your life" 4 months later you have excruciating pain in your belly, call for an ambulance and it never shows up because they do not treat terminally ill patients. Try dealing with that fact - that is socialized medicine and if we do it here eventually that is what will happen - lower costs = less treatment. How about the doctors in this type of system, do you think they will stick around to have their fees reduced by over 50% only to sit and wait for 3-4 months for payment? Get a clue Docjay - it would be a nightmare yet they would probably tax us for it just like social security.
Calling Hillarys proposal, which was in the infant stage, socalism, is just the opposite of a reasoned debate.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 24, 2007 08:59 AMBB, so now Russia's is the healthcare system we should be comparing ourselves to? Thats a sadly low bar your setting.
Posted by flimflam on May 24, 2007 09:07 AMFlim Flam you need to read all of the dialouge above. Docjay was looking for some EVIDENCE - did you comprehend what I wrote? Obviuosly not. That was a very good example of how it COULD end up, not neccesarily how it would end up. And it definitely was not comparing our system to theirs, once again read it and understand the limitations that may arise if we go down that road. Although you probably disagree I think our system works pretty well (if you like a free market economy anyway). Try to see the forest through the trees, those who beleive a single payer system is great for all of us need to step way back and look at the entire picture. I suppose you love the teachers unions and public education in it's current state also, that is a real succesful system, I 'm sure if they use that blueprint single payer helath care will great (yeah right)
Posted by BB on May 24, 2007 09:18 AMBB, you take annecdotal evidence about one of the worst examples of what you lump together as "socialized" medicine while completely ignoring the fact that many countries have better results for much less money then we pay. There are hard numbers and facts that support this and your arguement based on a single annecdote just doesn't stand up to that.
Posted by flimflam on May 24, 2007 09:49 AMRon Paul for President.
Posted by Jay on May 24, 2007 10:08 AMI don't agree with the original letter writer at all. But if we are talking about socialized medicine, there are much better examples to use (and probably a better topic).
For the vast majority, single payer systems work for prescriptions and annual "check-ups." Should an injury occur, or if surgery is needed, it is terrible. As an example, I am a ski racer (not very good). A very good Canadian ski racer blew his ACL while racing. The wait in Canada for surgery was 14 months. He came to the US, paid out of pocket and had it done in 14 DAYS! That is the difference in single payer health care. Those that are able to afford it, come to the US for surgery, those that can't, wait.
I don't know about Russia. I have friends that live in London, and they explain the same thing to me as the Canadian example. Great for annuals and medication, terrible if you are actually "sick." Imagine medicare or medicaid on steroids. Ask our seniors or WIC recipients how well that system works.
But in general, I think the "my way or the highway" mentality is equally utilized by both ends of the political spectrum. Liberal has lost it's definition of being open minded, and is instead just as prejudiced and close minded as the right is, just on the opposite end. In my opinion. No one listens to the other side anymore. We can have philosophical differences, and 80% of the time meet somewhere in the middle. But to not even consider what the other side is saying, boggles my mind.
Posted by Dan2 on May 24, 2007 10:21 AMFlimFlam,
Many countries is not an example of how and where it works well. How about you providing an example of a well run, non-bogged down system? I gave you one example of a very poor system (by the way it was her father and he died in the hospital waiting room) and I also pointed out to dmz that I was not saying this is how it would end up but that you need to look at it from all perspectives. You can't just say we need single payer health care system and ignore the problems it may create while at the same time only emphasizing the benefits (which you haven't, and there are a lot of benefits so don't try to put words in my mouth)
Dan2 makes some pretty good points to this effect so don't copy from his examples. Give me an original example of how great it would be, flim flam.
Sinlge payer is socialized if it's goverment provided, what else is called? I suppose in your mind social security is not socialized retirement funding?
The only reason we dont already have a single payer system in this country is because of the power of the insurance and private health care industries.
The only criticisms oponents can make are either generalizations about how bad it would be or anecdotal evidence from my mother in law's friend who once knew a person from a country with socialized medicine.
Of course every system has problems, but there are multiples systems out there that cost far less than we pay and these countries have longer life spans, less infant death and better access to high tech equipment just to name a few positives. Those are hard numbers.
We are all paying for healthcare only in this country there is a large group of insurance and industry companies skimming billions of dollars off the top of the pot.
Maybe everyone should drop all health coverage, along with those insane premiums, and just show up at the emergency room for whatever they need, and say 'no habla Englis', and they will be just fine.
Posted by Jay on May 24, 2007 11:23 AMHillary and the liberals want to live like they live in Cuba. That is Socialism right?? How can Liberals think that is good? I just don't get it. Their political correctness has taken so many more freedoms from us then any Patriot Act does but they don't see it that way because they are always right and if you don't agree you are wrong. I'm sure once they get their way and we are living in a Scialist country they will blame Bush not themselves.
Posted by on May 24, 2007 11:46 AMJay, go ahead and try that, let us know how well it worked out.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 24, 2007 12:39 PMBB,
What you have achieved by picking Russia is to prove that success isn't a necessary result of socialized medicine, but you haven't shown if it is not a typical result.
Tell me about the OECD countries and how medicine is done there and how it worked out for patients.
11:46, Cuba has been under embargo for decades, how would you expect things to work out?
Incidentally, they have better primary and secondary healthcare than here. So much so that they are a major exporter of health services.
Check out their infant mortality rate versus ours.
With all our technology and money and expertise, we should have the lowest in the world, no?
Flim Flam,
I still have no answers from, just more generalizations. Now I'll also await your "Hard Numbers". You also talk of anecdotal solutions but that is all you're doing - so which countries have a great government run healthcare system? - just one please!! And Bango Skank, did you even read what I wrote? Good grief, I never suggest that our system would end up as Russia's, just an Example. Bottom line was an example of possible outcomes.
I like the topic of single payer health care much better than the original letter, so let's go with it.
Here is a good Q and A link:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized
I personally think the idea of single payer has some really good things to it, for those that really can't afford "good" insurance. I have and can afford good insurance, so I would want the option to continue that. For those that are not as fortunate, a single payer system works the best.
Personally, I would prefer to continue with my own insurance, so that I would have the ability to "pay for services" if I ever really needed them (skiing accident, motorcycle accident, so forth), and I would also be willing to assist those that are not able to pay for such insurance.
My only real concern, as it affects me and my family, would be that I wouldn't want to have to "settle" for single payer, but would prefer an "opt-out" so that there would still be some private practice Dr's for those that could afford them.
Posted by Dan2 on May 24, 2007 01:34 PMClyde said ” Actually, the left is very fond of the way Mao ran China, and would love to do the same here. Rational discussion is NOT the left's forte.”
Actually not.
In fact “the left” as typified by Eric Blair (George Orwell) was horrified that Soviet and Maoist Communism was showing the same totalitarian tendencies as did the Conservatism that led to Mussolini and others.
By no stretch of the imagination could you say that “the left” was “fond” of Maoism, in fact it was a huge disappointment.
As for your claim about rational discussion, I suggest you go see who the rational speakers are – the philosophers, poets, artists, writers, lecturers, professors, etc.
They are predominantly (but not exclusively) on the liberal side.
Business on the other hand tends to be very Conservative, including stock exchanges, brokers, bankers, etc. When last did you see an advertisement or marketing campaign that was a “rational argument”?
They appeal to emotion and use trickery.
So tell me again, who is the rational group?
Depending on your definition of "rational" I would hardly call poets, artists, writers the "rational" ones of the world. At least not analytical.
Websters defines "rational" as:
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7. Mathematics. a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8. Classical Prosody. capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.
–noun 9. Mathematics. rational number.
As we can argue back and forth all day about "who's side is more or less rational" a rational person would conclude that BOTH sides partake in irrational behavior, no?
Dan2, Clyde was talking about "rational discussion" and I inferred from this that he was also implying that the "left" would not be prepared to discuss things in an open, honest, and reasonable way.
Hence my reference to poets etc who attempt to engage us.
If you restrict the argument to purely the technical side of rationality, then I would exclude all political animals, and assert that it is limited to only philosophers of science and logic, mathematicians, and certain other fields who deal in actual logic.
On those grounds, if you don’t know first-order and modal logic, and aren’t practiced in predicate calculus, you aren’t part of the club and can go soak your head.
Hope that clarifies it.
Many of you have some sort of attention deficit thingy going on.
Uh, the topic brought up by Ambrose was not health care. It was the fact that today many on the left want discussions on important matters to stop because they have THE ANSWERS. Ambrose is absolutely correct.
One of the first things I heard from the mouths of liberals on the global warming issue after the UN released the IPCC report was that the discussion is over and there is no need to spend more money on research, but just get on with the matter of changing policies concerning industry and emissions, Co2, etc. They have tried doing the same thing with regard to other heated topics of politics. They only want us to hear what they feel is for our own good, and don’t want any further discussion to cloud your thinking. After all, they are the smart ones for being so progressive.
However, with regard to the tangent topic here, government operated health care, I work for the government. Believe me when I say YOU DO NOT WANT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO HANDLE YOU HEALTH CARE AT ALL. You would not want to touch that with a 200 foot pole! You do not know what a living nightmare is until you have the government controlling something that important in your life. I have had my shot records lost by the government twice. If they cannot even keep track of a simple shot record, how good are they going to be at keeping track of other important docuements?
Posted by Pat on May 24, 2007 05:03 PMPat, I think you misunderstood what you were being told with regards Global Warming.
The message wasn't that no further research was needed, but that the debate regarding what the consensus position should be, was over. The new consensus position is that GW is happening and that human activity is a significant cause.
In other words, enough research has been done to start looking for mitigation actions and solutions.
Now, my question to you about healthcare is what length of pole would you not want in order to touch privatized healthcare?
I would also be curious as to what comparisons you have between private and government healthcare, especially in countries where socialized care is adequately funded.
Your faith in private healthcare is admirable, but I wonder on what you base this faith.
You might not be aware that the US spends pretty much the most money on healthcare per capita, and yet is nowhere near the top of the list for most of the critical measures of success.
From post-natal and post-operative infections, to infant mortality rate, to general health.
Can you explain how it can be that we spend so much and yet get so little?
How much of our healthcare costs are forwarded to the consumer from Govt regulations and mandates? Both for Profit and Nonprofit healthcare organizations?
Why are healthcare costs very similar for profit and nonprofit insurance companies?
What difference, if any do single payer systems spend on R&D compared to privatized health care?
Why is it that some groups do not trust the ability of citizens to make up their own minds on subjects and want to give those decisions to Govt? Is it not those same citezens that are not trusted to make life decisions, then trusted to vote in govt officials who make those decisions?
But the most important question is why do we drive on parkways but park on driveways:-)
"My wife is recently naturalized citizen that comes from Russia. You want evidence of how socialized medicine does not work?"
This sort of argument by anecdote is worthless, sorry.
Posted by Charles B on May 25, 2007 10:07 AM