Attn: All Canadians

[Bizud]

The extent of your argument is straw man arguments and that you think redistribution of wealth is slavery. ;)

Edited September 26, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

Really, name one straw-man argument. I resent that claim because my responses to you have been meticulous.

 

If you want to talk about styles of argument, you've used Argument from Intimidation at least a couple times. It's the lowest form of argument.

[Bizud]

Basically what you're proposing is an abolishment of free trade. Do you know what this would entail? Suppose I offer to mow my neighbours lawn, and he/she agrees to pay me $5 . Upon accepting the conditions of my employment, I now decide that I want a BILLION dollars. What right does my neighbour have to enslave me? This is asburd, but it's the system you're proposing. trade cannot be both voluntary and involuntary.

 

Straw man.

[no yu begin wher i end]

I wonder what the American healthcare system would be like if those extra 50 million people had access to it?

 

Also, other countries like England, New Zealand and Australia have private healthcare, and they have many of the same problems that we have here in Canada. So maybe the answer to our problems isn't privatized health care after all?

 

 

 

 

 

PS my source on that is a textbook from my politics course that I long since sold and used the cash for alcohol.

 

PPS I haven't read the entire thread. I'm too stoopid to debate ethics.

[heyrabbit]

Straw man.

Right, that's me explaining the contradictions in you're vague proposal of a system of government, where you outlined at least two key elements.(from Politics and Debate). If it's a straw man, why did you not correct me?

 

1. Authority is to be abolished

2. Workers gain control of the workplace

 

Immediately, your definitions of "authority" and "worker" are brought into question. If you're giving workers control of the workplace, you're in effect giving them authority, which means you're not abolishing authority at all -- you're redistributing it (your favorite word)

 

So what constitutes a worker and why should they get authority over non-workers? You don't say. We also don't yet know what a non-worker is.

 

Also, if workers need to be given authority, who had the authority in the first place? Are CEO's not workers? Is someone able to be more of a worker than someone else, thus granting them more authority? Or is it just that people with menial, low level positions are workers?

 

 

In a situation where a CEO is to hire an employee, who dictates the conditions of employment? If you're abrogating the CEO's right to set the conditions of employment, you're abrogating his right to be a CEO, thus abolishing the free market. I don't think you're really against the free market, even though your ideas are consistent to that effect. That then leads me to believe you're probably against the intellectual hierarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder what the American healthcare system would be like if those extra 50 million people had access to it?

 

Deciding which system is "good" or "bad" is a question of morality. What's the use of a free healthcare system in Darfur, or a privatized system in Ethiopia? These countries have crappy economies because of the fundamental code of ethics of their countries. If you fix the system, a healthy economy and a healthy country would be the result.

 

It's sort of like debating about health care systems for germany in 1943. Notice the health care provided to the jews as a result of Germany's code of ethics

Edited September 27, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

how about in the other thread

[little miss sunshine]

Didn't really read alot of this. But I did see someone refer to 'dental' under the universal healthcare system. You only get dental benefits from the government if you are on welfare. Not every citizen gets that.

[sodamntired]

you tube has the report by John Stossel, that I watched and made this thread

 

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

[ToadMan]

Well that was interesting.

 

I think that it's kinda glib on a few things, and also assumes a black and white solution. Though this may sound like sort of a flip flop: I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that either system is perfect. I would in fact like to see partial free market. In my experience Sask Health won't cover whatever I want, and my insurance has varying coverage on prescription drugs. When I need antibiotics my doctor gave my a choice between a generic drug (50% covered) with a 2 week treatment duration, or a new drug (which was 10% covered) with a 4 day treatment. As a micro example I think this isn't all bad. If you want the ritz you pay, if you just want the soup, it's affordable.