Funny How The Pendulum Always Swings Back

You had me until the end because I believe that the system works best when there is the proper balance between the need for change and the need to conserve what works, BUT...

I have been a practicing physician for over forty years and you are DEAD WRONG about universal health care. The only thing that should be socialized in the U.S. is the military [and perhaps the interstate highway system]. If you are for universal health care then you are revealing a great deal of ignorance on your part about how health care functions.

I will give you a chance to change your mind...if you choose to persist, then I will eviscerate you on this topic.

 

Sometimes I agree with one side and sometimes the other [and many times with neither]. Like most people.

We're not talking about Trump. And why do you believe he is the personification of extreme right bias?

Your right, 75 is probably more accurate. These are not a group of Rhodes Scholars, that's for sure. I've never heard so many ignorant people in government before. The VP sounds like she barely graduated from high school.

 

So, are you admitting you were incorrect when you claimed that Biden called 75 million people fascists?

The Hope and Change contingent didn't put it on their hats, shirts, or flags, and attack the Capitol, beating the crap out of police officers with the flagpoles.

On that last statement, we can agree. It can be fun to watch people's faces when they realize they got what they wished for. Schadenfreude.

 

Do you mean these people?

https://sais.jhu.edu/kissinger/news/biden-harris-administration

Note that they are all associated with the Kissinger Center, not exactly a bastion of left wing ideology. Centrists and scholars, all.

Or maybe you meant these folks:

https://www.cherwell.org/2021/02/25...ty-alumni-fill-roles-in-biden-administration/

Oh, wait ... that can't be who you meant! Some of them are actual Rhodes Scholars!

"Out of 25 members of the President’s cabinet, three are Oxford alumni and Rhodes scholars."

Consider yourself schooled, and please stop trying to convince anyone that you aren't a biased Trump supporter. It's pretty obvious.

 

I would have no choice to admit I was wrong if I made such statements. I did not. He simply fed his lemmings a term to rebleat for the purpose of demonizing those with different beliefs. The term is "MAGA Republicans"

On the subject of crowds committing acts of violence, the left is not in a position to point with clean hands. There are knuckleheads towing both lines. Painting the entire group with a broad stroke based on the actions of a few is a sweeping generalization fallacy. The vast majority of devout partisans are peaceful people. I read 2 studies on the link between genetics and political affiliation. Some people were born Dems/Reps.

 

Whataboutism is kinda lame in this context. Hundreds of people are currently serving time for rioting, looting, and burning during the BLM marches, which is where they belong. I certainly won't defend them. Why are you trying to defend the Jan 6 attackers by saying "they did it, too!"?

I'm not generalizing, and neither was Biden. The fraction of the GOP that has become more of a GQP are practicing a form of fascism, even those who are not smart enough to know it. There was nothing "sweeping" about it, he was very specific about who he was calling "MAGA Republicans." People just wouldn't know that if Fox News and Breitbart are their only information sources.

 

I don't understand why you are asking me about things I never said. Where did I defend the butthurt thugs from 1/6?

Biden absolutely used a sweeping generalization fallacy for the purpose of demonizing a group of people based on their beliefs. FOX and Bb are just selling the product their audience is eager to consume.

In the end, I really don't care what people believe. I draw the line at using government to force those beliefs on others. Government should be reduced to a minimum.

 

Thing is, it's not about you. The biggest mistake people make is assuming their personal view is universal. Not only is it not universal but it is nowhere close to reality. The human intellect simply has no access to Reality. Another conversation for another day.

You view yourself as a classical liberal and that is certainly a reasonable position. And most Americans do support universal health care and have since the 50's [but for all the wrong reasons]. Since you seemed to shy away from this debate, let me throw out a couple of ideas you might want to mull over...

1. Health care is NOT a right nor should it be.
2. The government and the corporations should have ZERO say when it comes to the delivery of health care and must desist from interfering in the doctor/patient relationship.
3. The patient needs to take primary responsibility for their own health and health care [similar to how parents need to take primary responsibility for their kids' education].

The government and the corporations control all aspects of health care and have for several decades. They have taken what was arguably the best health care system in the world and transformed it into a house of horrors. This is not to say that there isn't amazing technology and great care providers in the system, instead, it has taken what should be extremely high quality [and increasingly MORE affordable] and made it into another pathetic example of corporatism at its worst].

The dys-function and corruption of this system is so vast that the entire COVID/Fauci debacle is merely scratching the surface. Look at how arrogant this guy still is even when much of the non-sense that was going on has been exposed. This is incredibly deep-seated.

Why should health care be a right? With rights come responsibilities. Are you going to monitor all 335M Americans to see how they are conducting their lives, what they are eating, whether they are exercising regularly and getting enough sleep?

Individuals have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit and then enjoy/suffer the consequences of those choices. Why should all the folks who conduct themselves in a responsible manner pay for the legions of people who cannot even control their caloric intake? If you wish to eat yourself into oblivion, so be it, but don't expect somebody else to pay the freight when your body is in full rebellion.

Corporatism only works for the corporations and the government. This is why the only thing advertised in health care is technology and access. Neither of these things are important if you have a free market health care system [controlled by patients and providers].

Allow the provider of services to deal with the consumer directly and you will tremendously raise the level of care provided because great care is about human to human contact. It is about getting to know the patient and their needs. It's about an intimate relationship between doctor and patient. This takes time. You must spend enough time with your patient to be able to provide great care. There are no shortcuts.

What there is is a hundred ways you can provide sub-standard care. This is what the corporations and government push because they could care less about your health. They only care about some minimum level of care [that doesn't get them sued...although they have off-loaded all that responsibility to us anyway].

There are a million issues in health care but it all comes down to one thing...does your provider care about you? Can your provider care about you or has the corporate/government cabal completely rigged the system so that even the most caring of providers have little to no choice about how to practice? Seeing more patients in less time is the mantra. This is why [despite all the wonderful technology] the level of health care provided in the U.S. keeps falling.

If you go to a universal system [with a private system only available for the wealthy elite], the majority of Americans will receive care that is abysmal. Do you think that the elite in government or corporations could care less? They'll be going to providers in the private system. It's how it always is and why BIG government and BIG corporations mean BIG trouble for the vast majority.

 

There you go again: "Biden absolutely used a sweeping generalization fallacy" is horse pucky.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...-continued-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-nation/

"Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.

I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country."

 

First, you create a term. Second, use it when referring to those who disagree. This is basic manipulation. Now, anyone that votes for Trump is a MAGA extremist and a threat.

The way I see it, trumps support mostly comes from the overreach from the other side and vice versa. Each time the pendulum swings, more of the fruits of our labor end up it their hands.

There are no political benefits to uniting Americans and there was nothing in his speech that a reasonable person person could translate into a call for unity. It was a call for more power.

 

Do you mean like "antifa?"

Sounds like we heard two different speeches.

Did you watch the video or read the transcript? Or are you quoting someone? Everything you've posted so far regarding that speech sounds like it came straight outta FOX News. Did they show it live? I don't remember which channel I saw it on, but I read the transcript because my memory works better that way. Reading allows one to pause and contemplate when needed.

I recommend the transcript. That way, you don't miss any of the context.

 

No. Antifa is not a term created by opposition to demonize the group. They created the name to project an image of opposition to fascism while using force to push their agenda. Ironic!

I do not suckle from partisan media nipples like FOX, MSN, CNN, Bb, etc. I took the quote you posted at face value and explained the simple psychology behind it. He fed his lemmings a phrase to rebleat and they will use it to describe anyone that votes for trump. This is far from a new trick.

The most dangerous people in the world are not evil; its those willing to blindly follow.

 

Never said it was.

Policies arise from ideas. Ideas come from people. Your point is of no consequence and thus it is meaningless.

A vacuous claim.

Another vacuous claim, you're on a roll!

Whatever.

No, I never made that claim. This tells me you are not paying attention. If you were paying attention, you realize I stated I was a liberal. You assumed I meant 'classical', which is a mistake because when anyone identifies as a classic liberal, they usually add the 'classic' qualifier. Now, you should have known this, if you consider yourself a well read and informed person.

Okay, I will qualify it, so you understand what I mean, i am a modern liberal/libertarian. A modern liberal/libertarian upholds the values of classical liberalism with modifications adjusted and appropriate for the vastly more complex and dynamic society we live in compared to the late 18th century, when classic liberalism began.

They support universal health care for the following reasons:
1. Because we believe that affordable access to health care raises America's morale.
2. Because we believe that affordable access to health care is in the best interest of America, and her health and well being is a subject of high priority, because if a nation is not healthy, it is not secure and that aids and abets the interests of our enemies.
3. We believe health care should be a right.

Now you are making more assumptions? Where o' where to you get such fanciful notions?

An arbitrary claim. Modern liberals disagree.

It's not a simple yes and no. The governing board should consist of mostly doctors, scientists, with a few accountants thrown in.

This does not conflict with any point I favor, thus far. And it would, could, should a help a person take responsibility by making sure that health care is:
1. Accessible.
2. Affordable.

yes, America's health care system is in need of improvement. Nice observation.

About half of the advances in medicine are funded by the Government mostly through universities.
Sure, there is always room for improvement of the system, overall, especially in the arena of corporate funded epidemiological studies, many of which I tend to view with suspicion. But, I've interviewed scientists involved in such studies, and was encouraged by their replies to my poignant questions. But, I believe it is a fact that disfavorable studies get suppressed, and that is wrong.

An unsubstantiated claim regarding Fauci. You'll need to substantiate your claim from credible sources.

Why shouldn't it be a right? If it is a right, it will force the government to make certain it is affordable and accessible to everyone.
After that is achieved, then the nation will be healthier than it could be otherwise.

I get the arguments about 'people should take care of themselves'. But that is a separate argument than accessible, affordable, health care and making it a right.

The government, some decades ago, wanted to get people off cigarettes. I'm 71. When I was young, most people smoked Now, via massive educational campaigns going on for decades now, that number has vastly shrunk. yes, the gov can encourage people to do better.

We have done this and in more areas of health, We can do this. Why are you so cynical?

I agree on that point, which is the libertarian side of my liberalism.

This is where too much libertarianism is a bad thing.

Okay, my rebuttal:

For the greater good, in order to be a more perfect union, in order that people have accessible health care, and when they do, the nation, as a whole, will benefit, which is what 'for the greater good' means. For a modicum of sacrifice, the greater share burdened disproportionately by the more affluent (a progressive tax) we can do this. And, while that is happening, the gov enacts a campaign to encourage people to be more fit, eat better, etc, just as the gov, with the help of private industry, encouraged people to get off cigarettes' and that campaign was a resounding success!

One thing we can do right now it make it illegal to show people smoking in movies. even though it will be historically inaccurate, it's not a necessary historical detail to any plot in any movie. It was movies that got America hooked in the first place, and now they are doing it all over again.

You have a poor debate habit of using overly emotional language. doing that is a pseudo debate trick and does not improve your argument. In point of fact, very view people 'eat themselves into oblivion', and though you are using a rhetorical device, know that it literal meaning is inaccurate. A more skilled debater will just stick to facts, logic and reason with real life examples that can be substantiated, nothing more.

rebutted, above (in the 'too much libertarianism is a bad thing' paragraph).

I'm anti-neoliberalism, which means I advocate a total overall of the corporate system. Currently, the corporate mandate is corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to make as much profit for the shareholders as possible. That edict should be subservient to:
1. The preservation of American jobs.
2. The health and well being of American citizens and the environment.

I also advocate the only way stocks can be traded are:

1. The purchase of stock certificates must be represented by paper certs. Stock trading must be de-digitized and de-computer controlled.
2. Must be held for at least one month before trading (this term is negotiable, that's my initial idea).
3. Cannot be bidded on, must trade at the accounting certified 'book value'. only which is assessed daily.

I am against exotic paper, such as derivatives, default swaps, and the like.

Just as you can send your children to private schools, if you want, I support a private option on health care (or a public option to private health care, either way, the result is the same). No one should be denied the right to pay for health care directly or via private insurance, and so let these compete with UHC, just as private schools compete with public education.

well, my HMO visits my house every so often, to check up on me, my primary care doctor's nurse calls me in every so often, for a check up. I guess it depends on who your provider is. I'm very happy with healthnet. Under medicare, which pays for most of it, it only costs me $180 per month, no deductibles or copays. Surgery there is a 10% surcharge, which can get expensive, so I'm looking for a supplemental policy.

I believe a UHC system can do better than the ACA or medicare, though.

Says who? I've talked to over 100 people from just about every western developed nation all of whom have some variant of UHC, having been in a business that puts me in contact with foreigners, and I always ask them this question:

"IF you could trade your country's health care system for that of America's, would you trade it?

The reply has been about 99% saying 'NO' And not just no, HELL NO!

While everyone states that all health care systems have room for improvement, but your claim doesn't square with my experience.

You appear to take this right wing echo chamber nihilistic cynical frame of reference, your choice of words reek of it. Your phraseology reeks of right wing thought-terminating clichés.

You really ought to rethink your world view, and study it better. Read my 'pendulum' treatise, give it a test run in your brain.

 

My apologies for quoting only snippets from your post. For those who want the full context, see #33.

As to the two statements above: do you apply those views equally to both men and women? I ask because right now, red states are enacting laws to restrict those those rights and niceties from women. How do you view that blatant inequality? I'm curious.

 

The government has no business interfering in personal health care decisions. The rights of the unborn are an entirely different matter that our society is going to grapple with for a long time to come. There are certainly reasonable arguments that can be made on both sides.

 

The "unborn" are not people. The Constitution applies to living, breathing people, not zygotes, embryos, or fetuses. My uterus should not be "searched" by the state. I refer you to the 4th Amendment. It should apply to women of childbearing age, but right now, it doesn't.

Thanks for a polite reply.

 

This is exceedingly complicated. It also seems as if you do not have children of your own.

 

I have been a practicing physician for over 40 years, have seen well over 200K patients as well as having dealt with the health care system on many, many levels, yet it is I who should be re-thinking my view?

I did this to demonstrate that ideological people like yourself simply take whatever they happen to know about a particular subject and cram it into their narrative. This is what goes in with the left and the reason I suspected you were left. Facts simply do not matter. Only allegiance to the narrative.

It's not worth getting into the details with you because you have no clue what's going on.

You should climb down from the mountain and educate yourself. Then go back to school and get your M.D., practice for 40+ years and come back and tell me what you think is going on.

 

Well if you were confused you’re clearly a partisan conservative. Um yeah there are backlashes against progress, but still the overall trend has been for freedom in social policy over the past 80ish years. The biggest step back has been abortion lately, but it was more a states rights decision and could help to push things to the left after it backfires. Fiscal I don’t even know what to say, just keeps changing. Socialism to capitalism to globalism to partial protectionism. A wheel with many spokes and facets I guess.

 

Abortion is only complicated because conservatives are confused. An embryo has no mind and therefore is not a person.

 

You've crammed more pretentious and soporific drivel into one comment that most on this forum, congratulations!

All that education, and your argument doesn't rise above posturing?

Tsk tsk. I mean, if you are going to assert you are superior to this mere mortal, the least you could do is prove it, something, anything more than vacuous prose totally devoid of the robustness one would hope from someone of the vast experience and education you claim to possess. What a disappointment you are.

 

No it couldn't.

 

Evidence says otherwise.

 

Children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Try not to think you know anything about anyone. That was not a very good guess.

No, it isn't complicated. It's quite simple. Either the 4th Amendment applies to women of childbearing age, or it doesn't. Embryos and fetuses are not people. Either I have the right to privacy, or I'm a second class citizen and I don't. What takes place in my uterus is no one's business unless I say it is.

I think it very likely that by overturning Roe, the SCOTUS has handed the midterms to the Democrats. Mitch McConnell didn't tell Lindsey Graham to shut his pie hole for no reason ... the Republicans are simply not discussing the issue because they know damn well that the majority of their own constituents are not with them on these draconian bans many red states are enacting. Kansas was just the first domino. Between women's rights, and the threat to democracy caused by Trump Republicans, even many Republicans and conservative independents are leaning away from the far right.

 

All of which brings to my mind that well-worn, but still workable adage:

Physician, heal thyself.

Unless, of course, that one goes over your head, and, for some reason, I suspect it will.

You will eviscerate me? You couldn't eviscerate a moron wearing inside-out pajamas.

Just listen to you! Jeezus bedazzled! He's going to eviscerate me, he says? Ain't he cute?

Hey Doc, for over the last 50 years I've talked to people from just about every western developed nation all of which, but America, have some variant of UHC, and they tell me that, though no system is perfect, they wouldn't trade their country's system for that of the United States. I know this because I make it a point to ask just about any foreigner I meet, if the occasion allows, which, it usually does, given that I'm particularly curious to that specific opinion of foreigners who have experienced both systems well enough to formulate such an opinion.

Not only that, that sentiment is almost 100%. So, something's amiss with your philosophy, which, of course, you've only alluded to with the kind of vagueness that any tap dancing lawyer in defense of the guilty would be proud. I've been hearing that kind of boring tripe since I was a child being manipulated by my sister's militia mentored boyfriend trying to convince me there's a commie in every room in the house. Here you are, some 60 years later, a veritable John Birch Society reject trying to sell me on the wonders of neoliberalism, or whatever the hell it is you are peddling.

Give me a ****ing break.

Also, your penchant for petty ad homs and 'holier than thou' posturing is beneath your station. That leads me to conclude you are a phony.

If I were you, I'd ask for a refund for all that education, for it isn't being revealed in the caliber of your verbiage you've deigned to spew on this forum.

Also, it's glaringly obvious you are not a seasoned debater. I learned way back in the 90s in the early days of the debate forums of usenet, and BBSes, not to flaunt my education. It's like you are a beginner in a chess game and your first move is the same stupid move every beginner makes.

Perhaps it didn't occur to you that, just like lawyers in law, many of whom are of all political stripes, some are liberal, some are conservative, some are in between, it's no different in the medical field, and therefore your 'education' and 'experience' is neatly eviscerated by that section in the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit, that section about 'Appeals to authority' logical fallacy. See, you can supplement your argument with an ATA, but when your argument appears to rely on it in toto, as you have done, that's when you need a thorough study of the Kit.

Like I mentioned before, do consider a refund for that education you somehow appear unable to apply in the debate arena. Perhaps you know how to get someone to stick out their tongue and say 'ahhh' with assiduous aplomb, however, outside of your clinic, you are out of your league as evidenced, writ large, by the staleness of your argument.

In fact, I'll give you a more acute diagnosis:

It sucks.