Tell me it is just and holy to oppose health care reform.

[black_wing_angel]

Seneca-ERRAREHUMANUMEST

Well, I'm pretty sure still that health care reform is the generally loving thing to do, and the only valid argument I have seen that opposition is just or holy is from the point of view that not all humans are equal. I disagree completely, from a spiritual and metaphysical point of view, and think that the belief that we are separate is what has stunted the evolving and harmonious existence of humanity for thousands of years. But. I can't prove oneness to those who furiously keep their third eyes shut, so I think that's about what this argument boils down to in the end. And I think it is what is in the heart of each of those Republicans. That they are better than everyone else.

I'm gonna go eat dinner then 8D

Well, as an intelligent non-criminal, I find that I'm "more deserving of life" than a stupid person, or a criminal.

And I'm making a differentiation between "stupid" and "ignorant". Ignorant is when you didn't know any better. Stupid is when you should have.

I can forgive the ignorant, but the stupid, have got to go.

[The Zodikosis]

Seneca-ERRAREHUMANUMEST

The Zodikosis

EmotionallyInconsistent

The Zodikosis

Put simply some people just don't want to pay for other people's medical bills through their taxes. Not everyone is completely compassionate to other beings just because they are humans too, in fact most people aren't and don't care if others die.

Sounds like those people need to be near death and helpless... not to learn anything of course. People don't learn, but watching them squirm in pain, knoowing no one will help them would be so funny.

This is the Zodiac speaking...

It is human nature and it's illogical to argue it and unproductive to denounce it as "wrong", because it's still not going to change. In fact, almost everyone does not give a damn what happens to someone they don't know, including you. That's why kids are starving in Africa while you sit here complaining about people who should expect health care. Torturing them will do absolutely nothing except satisfy your sadistic needs, but of course you've already identified that.

...that is all.

It is not illogical nor unproductive to denounce certain human nature as "wrong". Rather, I believe it is the opposite. It is the only way we can evolve.

We are not still apemen hunting down animals to eat raw and chasing each other off from our watering holes. No, now we're a little more hairless and bombing each other away from them.

And I think we could help those children in Africa if we evolved, too. But that's for another thread.

This is the Zodiac speaking...

Human nature does not really change because we will it to change, or at the very least it is not that simple. You can see that in very simple examples of human psychology that seem "awful" compared to our moral standards, but if you can't really help it, is it really that awful? Maybe, but in my opinion if you can't help it because it's a part of human psychology, then I don't see how it's just to blame. Simply put, no animal (for we are, after all, still animals, albeit very different from the rest of our kingdom given our cognitive and physiological development) is capable of innately caring about another foreign individual, even if of the same species, if the distance is wide enough because they will never really know each other. Even if they were aware the other existed in the vaguest sense, with no name or face to attach to the idea, they hold no empathy. In short form, most people and animals (if you want to ignore the connection fine, but a lot of people won't) will inherently only limit their true concerns to their population or province. Beyond that, they may care on a superficial level, but deep down if there is a famine halfway across the globe and children are being orphaned, will you go as out of your way to adopt those children as opposed to if your sister and her husband died and their baby was left behind? No, you'd be more inclined to adopt your sister's baby than some nameless, faceless African child who you've never met. Technically you could adopt the African over your niece, but human psychology says you have a tendency to prefer helping your own kin over strangers if you have to choose between the two.

...that is all.

[Nonesuch Solo]

Seneca-ERRAREHUMANUMEST

Well, I'm pretty sure still that health care reform is the generally loving thing to do, and the only valid argument I have seen that opposition is just or holy is from the point of view that not all humans are equal. I disagree completely, from a spiritual and metaphysical point of view, and think that the belief that we are separate is what has stunted the evolving and harmonious existence of humanity for thousands of years. But. I can't prove oneness to those who furiously keep their third eyes shut, so I think that's about what this argument boils down to in the end. And I think it is what is in the heart of each of those Republicans. That they are better than everyone else.

I'm gonna go eat dinner then 8D

Not at all. A lot of those people think that the proposal that's coming out is going to do more harm than good.

[GunsmithKitten]

Quote:

How would you help, then? Plz to describe in detail.

The Cliff Notes version of what I'd do in order of importance.

-Revoke any and all anti-trust exemptions that health insurance companies get.
-Offer tax incentives to concierge and flat rate clinics
-"Loser pays" clause in the event that a malpractice suit is deemed "frivolous" (note: that even most denied malpractice suits deemed unsuitable are not also deemed frivolous)
-Forbid insurance companies from dropping categories of coverage.
-Cap premium payment requirements.
-Legally penalize "processing" and other nickle and dime fees after claim denial.

[black_wing_angel]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

How would you help, then? Plz to describe in detail.

The Cliff Notes version of what I'd do in order of importance.

-Revoke any and all anti-trust exemptions that health insurance companies get.
-Offer tax incentives to concierge and flat rate clinics
-"Loser pays" clause in the event that a malpractice suit is deemed "frivolous" (note: that even most denied malpractice suits deemed unsuitable are not also deemed frivolous)
-Forbid insurance companies from dropping categories of coverage.
-Cap premium payment requirements.
-Legally penalize "processing" and other nickle and dime fees after claim denial.

Throw in a limit to claims for avoidable problems (stupid stuff, like wrecking a bike trying to do a stunt), and I would TOTLALLY vote you into presidency!

[EmotionallyInconsistent]

The Zodikosis

EmotionallyInconsistent

The Zodikosis

Nonesuch Solo

EmotionallyInconsistent

Nonesuch Solo

Is that how karma works?

You can watch and relish people get theirs in the end?

Gee, sounds like a fanfic and not an actual spiritual force...

Just in case you have a reading problem, I said "almost as if"--not actually karma.

It's just amusing that you liken some sick, twisted sort of revenge to the spiritual concept of karma.

This is the Zodiac speaking...

Yeah, it does just sound like you want to satisfy your aggressive tendencies regardless of what actually happens.

...that is all.

I do. What made you think I didn't?

This is the Zodiac speaking...

Since I've recently spent a great deal of my time socializing off of the internet, I'm used to assuming people will at least try to cover up their psychopathic tendencies. But then I came here again. My bad.

...that is all.

But it's also fun to pretend to be a psychopath. 3nodding

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Seneca-ERRAREHUMANUMEST

EsgarBlackpoxs

Seneca-ERRAREHUMANUMEST

EsgarBlackpoxs

Seneca-ERRAREHUMANUMEST

I didn't say don't ban cars. That would probably save lives. I said banning alcohol would be stupid. And there's no point making an analytical argument about it when it ISN'T THE ALCOHOL KILLING PEOPLE.

It's pretty clear that alcohol is a driving factor in these vehicular accidents; unless 'drunk driving' is some sort of code-phrase that I'm unfamiliar with? Besides, banning alcohol would make it tougher for people to kill themselves on it (liver failure and all that good stuff). There's probably some research out there on it leading to unbalanced frames of mind as well (and thus suicides/murders, I imagine. But I haven't looked at that research).

It is a factor, not the cause. And no. It's pretty easy to make alcohol.

Then what's the cause, and why is such a hubub made over breathalizers and driving drunk if the alcohol isn't the real problem? No points for 'people making bad choices'

And so what if it's easy? Guns can be home made and I don't see light .50 workshops springing up in California for average citizens. Or even assault weapon parts (removable magazines, long barrels, thumbhole stocks, etc).

It'll be awhile before I reply again. Gots me fencing to go to.

A) People who make the decision to drive drunk are the cause when their impaired motor skills make a slip and go BOOSH.

B) Because guns don't give people the same haaaaappy fuzzy feeling that many want lots. Hardly comparable.

A) and their motor skills are impaired because?....

B) My point is that simply banning something won't lead to a whole underground movement of it being created or that the status quo would merely be maintained (I'm interested if they would all still drink if there was a life sentence attached to the crime of dinking, possessing, or imbibing alcohol). But we're getting off track here.

My point this whole time is that I disagree with the notion that something is worth doing 'if it saves even just one life' and 'immediacy'. There alot of things we can do to save 'just one life', the alcohol thing was just an example. We could use cars, or guns, or any number of things. I disagree that we should ignore consequences and impacts for the sake of immediacy and feel good politics.

[AngelofRelief]

black_wing_angel

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

How would you help, then? Plz to describe in detail.

The Cliff Notes version of what I'd do in order of importance.

-Revoke any and all anti-trust exemptions that health insurance companies get.
-Offer tax incentives to concierge and flat rate clinics
-"Loser pays" clause in the event that a malpractice suit is deemed "frivolous" (note: that even most denied malpractice suits deemed unsuitable are not also deemed frivolous)
-Forbid insurance companies from dropping categories of coverage.
-Cap premium payment requirements.
-Legally penalize "processing" and other nickle and dime fees after claim denial.

Throw in a limit to claims for avoidable problems (stupid stuff, like wrecking a bike trying to do a stunt), and I would TOTLALLY vote you into presidency!

I agree with all that was stated above. Might I also recommend allowing health insurance to be offered across state lines such as auto insurance is. This would increase the competition among insurance companies thus making them drop their rates to meet the needs of their consumers, less they risk the chance of losing their current clients.

[magicskittles08]

Nonesuch Solo

GunsmithKitten

Not all of us who oppose this bill are opposed to reform.

This this and this.



You can't just expect gorram statistics to change someone's mind when they honestly don't believe the proposal will fix what's wrong!

This is true, but there's also a large problem of Republicans failing to recognize that there is even a problem to begin with. Probably because of the nice big insurance companies paying for nice big things.