Question for libertarians & conservatives

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Sep 23, 2021.

  1. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    4,839
    Likes Received:
    2,089
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good post... agre on medical care a lot. But Trump never incited anything and certainly never "subverted democracy". Without that entry your post is excellent.
     
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    50,873
    Likes Received:
    16,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The immediate reduction in the cost of 'running' all those welfare recipients would be significant. You would need to do a cost analysis to get a better grasp on it, but as an example the cost of an individual in receipt of contemporary welfare can be in the region of $500 per week (all told) - but via materials only would be close to half that. When you also factor in the huge number of people who would immediately drop out of the system because they don't like the paramaters, you increase the savings again. Yes, some will return (those who decide they don't love their freedom enough to do the work for it), but there will be a wholesale long term reduction.
     
  3. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,597
    Likes Received:
    38,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Essential is your key word here. Who decides what's essential? Who decides who's essential? Fauci?

    This is what happened in Russia - No one had any limit placed on their essential healthcare in Russia. Sometimes people became nonessential. What happens when I become nonessential? Well?

    I don't want someone else making the sole choice for me as to what is essential about my health. The government already has too much control over my healthcare. I have to have government permission for Rosemary extract for silliness' sake. The government ventilators end up poisoning people and people have to pay $500 to get government permission to get replacement ones which don't poison them - maybe.

    And you want to give the government more control . . .
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2021
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    50,873
    Likes Received:
    16,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Medical science is the only determiner of 'essential'. If you need the treatment to stay alive, you will receive it. All public healthcare is triaged according to MEDICAL NEED.

    If you're seeking more than is medically necessary, then you will naturally have to pay for that - because what you're looking for is outside the purview of the science. It's likely related to personal comfort or preference.
     
  6. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Horse manure.

    "Science" has never had anything to do with it.
    Another fantasy-land statement. No, universal healthcare has never worked that way. Under universal healthcare, one applies for treatment and the state determines if it is in its best interest to provide it.
    Oh boy, do you think that putting it in all caps makes it easier to read?

    Essential, medical need, and medical science all means the same thing to statists - whatever they want it to mean.
    And how does that happen after you've forced all the doctors to work for the state?

    And do I get to opt out of the $3000-a-month universal healthcare taxes when I decide to visit these non-existent doctors for unnecessary medical treatments like heart valves?
    You're right, replacing heart valves is is truly personal comfort or preference. After all the heart valve is not broken, yet. Just wait a few years for it to wear out a bit more.
     
  7. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    4,839
    Likes Received:
    2,089
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope our society doesn't completely fall apart for another two years. I'm due a new pacemaker then. Anew one will give me another ten years then... I doubt I will need a new one after that. Then again, any attack accompanied with EMP effects will fry the pacemaker and I'm done.
     
    Bob Newhart likes this.
  8. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    50,873
    Likes Received:
    16,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) I have lived with (and also WORK in) our public health system for most of my life. And yes, that's exactly how it works. All treatment is triaged according to medical need. You don't 'apply' for treatment, you simply attend your doctor and she/he pursues treatment on your behalf. Alternatively you present at hospital emergency, and receive urgent care treatment. There is no other factor besides your medical status. If you present at emergency with a life-threatening condition, you will be treated immediately. If you present with a bad knee, you won't.

    2) It means exactly what it says on the box. MEDICAL need. Not 'I want my own doctor' need, or 'I want a private room' need.

    3) What are you talking about here? On what planet do all the doctors work for the State? I think you've either been watching too much dystopian sci fi, or you have no clue what Public Health is. Our general practictioners and specialists are in PRIVATE PRACTICE just as they are in America .. the only difference is that Govt pays the bill. Further, the doctor doesn't give a crap whether you pay, a private health fund pays, or Govt pays. The major difference in a Public System is that our public hospitals are usually better than private hospitals, because they're not profit dependent. They can allocate a lot more money to cutting edge technologies, facilities, and the best possible staff. The elite specialists consult to our public hospitals, so being a public patient doesn't exclude you from access to the best of the best.

    4) When and if your heart valved needed replacing, it would be replaced. That would be considered medical necessity.
     
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one ever said he 'subverted democracy' , he just attempted to subvert the election.

    Read the title of the report, and then read the report as to what he actually did.

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf
     
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Opinions/art, etc., require attribution, of course. Is that what we have here? Let's take a look.

    For one thing, it was a banal list. You make it sound like I stole a copyright.

    Well, as someone who owns many copyrights and who has studied the law of copyrights out of professional necessity, I can say with a modicum of humble authority that I have ripped off no one given the fact that a banal list is not protected by copyright law, and, as such, therefore exists in the public domain.

    However, if the list were selections with a uniqueness about it, such as a point being made, taken from a larger list, that might be protected under copyright law. But, given that the list in question was every war, there is nothing selective, sequentially, or otherwise, or unique about it. I therefore deemed it to be in the public domain list of facts, and made the conscious decision that a source was therefore unnecessary and unimportant. Obviously, is someone really cared about the source of that list, they could peal of one reference and google it.

    Now then, if you research thousands of my posts, you'll find that the vast majority of time I provide quotes for items not in the public domain by italicizing them, and listing the source and limiting quotations such as not not upset the DMCA. I've done this a few thousand times, as I make it a point to not rip anyone off, and I also make it a point to know what the term 'rip off' actually means, when it comes to printed matter.

    Apparently, you don't.

    If some IP lawyer thinks I violated the DMCA, feel free to chime in, I'm no lawyer and will not claim to be perfect on the subject, but at least you have my input as to why I did what I did.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_in_lists
    Copyright in a list may exist in the content of the list or in the way that the content was selected and arranged. Copyright does not protect facts, but it does protect opinion. If a source is based on "value judgments", it may be protected by copyright, even if it looks very similar to fact. And even if the source is fact, copyright may still protect its selection and arrangement if these are creative.

    Was there anything particularly 'creative' about the list?

    I didn't think so.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  11. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,597
    Likes Received:
    38,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, you are the one who started the source critique, because, following PF rules, I showed what wasn't my own work and properly sourced the quoted material. You, on the other hand, straight ripped a large amount of another's work, did not set it off in quotes and did not attribute it to its actual source, and despite your denials, it is copyrighted: "Copyright © Isaac Davis, Activist Post, 2015" as the source you ripped off informs readers of the material you stole, not once, but twice.
    Whether you follow PF rules or not is up to you, since you shot your mouth off about my source, which was properly set off in quotes and labeled, I just thought you mind find it interesting that your ripped off your source and did not even give it the consideration of attribution.

    But do as you wish, other than the opportunity of pointing out your self-righteous hypocrisy, I could care less. If you are ok with stealing the work of others and passing it off as your own, that's up to you to sort out.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  12. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The post made the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.

    Poster has identified himself as someone with a non-neutral opinion.
    Triage in hospitals is based off of symptoms as well as status.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/nyregion/governor-cuomo-coronavirus-testing.html
    And that's the tip of the iceberg. Things are even worse in foreign countries who have fully adopted universal healthcare. The military also does triage in this way.
    All patients apply for treatment. If people don't succeed in applying for treatment, then they may bleed out right outside the hospital's doors.
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/parking-lot-not-close-enough-for-b-c-hospital-staff-1.522765
    As I have said and the poster has demonstrated in his posts medical need means whatever a statist wants it to mean.

    Printing in all caps is considered rude.
    North Korea and Cuba for starters.

    People want to start it in the U.S. as well.

    https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/28/medicaid-physicians-social-contract/
    Once again, the post makes things personal.
    By definition, that makes them public practice. Telling a lie in all caps doesn't make it true.
    No. They do - already provided the article.
    Kool-aid
    More propaganda.
    Whenever the statist believes it should be replaced . . .

    https://inews.co.uk/news/health/nhs-waiting-lists-heart-patients-facing-delays-vital-scans-1301750
     
  13. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    50,873
    Likes Received:
    16,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you'll run with the nonsense propagated by those who don't understand how Public Health works in a democracy .. as opposed to the reality of those who live and work in same. We are not North Korea, we are a capitalist democracy. Whatever you envisage is wildly incorrect.
     
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You obviously know nothing about copyrights.

    Everything you write and publish is automatically copyrighted.

    You can post the copyright sign, too. People do that often to give the impression that what you are reading was registered with the Copyright Office.

    But what does that mean, putting the copyright sign on your work?

    Does it mean you registered the copyright?

    No, it doesn't.

    If you did register the copyright, is everything you wrote protected by copyright law?

    No, it is not.

    I explained to you what lists, per se, are not necessarily protected by Us Copyright law, and I what is and what isn't.

    Did you not take a moment to read it?

    Apparently you did not.

    Public domain copying is not theft, nor does it violate the DMCA.

    You can put your copyright sign on your work, but not everything you write is protected. To understand what is, you have to study the law

    I explained that to you.

    There have been numerous quotes on this forum without sourcing, did you go over the deep end on them, as well?

    I've seen a few, and asked them for a source, but I didn't overreact and accuse them of 'ripping off'.

    The list I published, given that it is not unique, given that it is pure fact, given that every war was listed nothing excluded, which means there is nothing unique about the list, and thus it is public domain fact.

    If the writer of the article thinks I violated the DMCA, let them come after me.

    I didn't source it because I sincerely believe the list was public domain fact.

    I read the damn law before I posted it.

    I could be wrong, but that was my reading of the law.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  15. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,769
    Likes Received:
    3,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think universal health care is a decent idea...



    ...provided we get immigration under control. I really don't care why your in the hospital
     
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your source was ****, got it? Ahh, now i see what is bugging you.

    All I did was explain to you, with evidence, your source is unreliable, per mediabiasfactcheck.

    I didn't accuse you of ripping anyone off.

    Public domain fact is free to anyone.

    Only that part of what you write is unique, opinion, artistic, whatever, is copyrightable.

    If you write an opinion about facts taken from some gov bureau, your opinion is copyrightable, but if you take a list in include it in your work, that list you took from the government isn't copyrightable, it's public domain.

    I just assumed that is what the author did. Putting a © sign on your work doesn't mean all you wrote is protected by copyright law, nor does it indicate the author registered the copyright, which would be necessary for redress of infringement.

    If you hadn't overreacted, and asked me for the source, because you wanted to verify the facts, or you wanted to research the author, I would have given you the source, as I have asked others for sources, but you know you could easily find the source, and I knew that you could easily find the source, so I didn't think it was that big of a ****ing deal like you want to make it.

    So, what the **** is your problem?

    "Hypocrisy" ? ---jeesuz ****, just listen to you.

    Climb down off of your high horse, it's beginning to look like a white horse.





     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    An appeal to authority only becomes a logical fallacy when your entire argument rests on the authority.

    Now, it doesn't mean that what is being argued is false, it's just means that resting your argument solely on an authority doesn't settle your argument.

    Quoting an authority (including oneself) as a supplement to other numerous facts supporting a greater argument is perfectly acceptable and, in that fashion, does not constitute a logical fallacy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  18. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Currently. However, I'd like to keep it that way. Universal Healthcare goes in the opposite direction.
    The theme of your posts is still the same - the hatred of freedom.
     
  19. Bob Newhart

    Bob Newhart Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2021
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which he did multiple times.
    He gave no facts.

    Claiming yourself as an authority in an anonymous online forum is the epitome of stupid.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  20. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,597
    Likes Received:
    38,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You continually claim that passing off the work of others as you own is "fine" but, properly showing quotes and sourcing it is a "problem." You are pretty mixed up.

    Here are the PF rules you violated:
    15. LINKS, IMPROPER QUOTING, AND COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms

    See how easy that is? You are on your third post claiming that it's virtuous for you to pass off the work of others as your own, I've tired of your claims.

    If you want to pass off the work of others as your own, I could care less, but, after your third post of defending your violations of both PF rules and common decency, I simply find you a bore.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  21. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    of the 50 or so western liberal democracies, most, if not all, have some variation of UHC.

    This idea that UHC is antithetical to freedom is unsupported by facts. People who live on those countries are just as free as you are and I am. Nor is it antithetical to capitalism. Most people in those countries, on the whole, especially the Netherlands, are happier people than those of us in America.

    Milton Friedman, the famous libertarian economist, supported a negative income tax. Why? Because the recipients could spend the money any way they wanted.

    Medicare is similar, I choose my doctor who runs a private clinic, the only difference is, the government pay the bill.

    If everyone contributed, and received, the cost per capita would be less than premiums and you still get to choose yoru doctor, and clinics still compete with each other. We know this because in those countries I mentioned the cost of health care per capita is roughly half of what it is in the United States.

    Hardly the commie dystopia you try to portray.
    Textbook hysterics.

    Chill out.

    "Hatred of freedom', --- jeesuz ****, just listen to you.
     
    crank likes this.
  22. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,597
    Likes Received:
    38,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My source was fabulous. If you quote others, common decency and PF rules require you to set it off in quotes and source it.
    Of course not, unlike you, in accordance with PF rules and common decency. I properly showed quoted material as quotes and provided a link to the source. Unlike some, I didn't steal the work of others and pass it off as my own.

    You should probably mind your own conduct when it comes to sources rather than lecturing others who actually follow the rules of sources and attribution of the work of others rather than trying to pass it off as your own.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  23. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,597
    Likes Received:
    38,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The source you used, without attribution, twice made it clear that if you used the material that you should also attribute it. PF rules and common decency require the same. So why do try to pass off the work of others as your own? Everyone else does, are you too "special" or something?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    7,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a vacuous claim, you do that a lot .

    Vacuous claims are the province of those with weak debate skills.

    Now, I don't' even need to back that one up, because it will stand on pure logic, alone.
    To assert that claiming authority anonymously online is stupid, is the dumbest statement I've seen in while.
     
  25. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,597
    Likes Received:
    38,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They listed an opinion, I quoted it, and in keeping with the rules of common decency and PF, I attributed it. It's not clear to me why you are making such a big deal out of properly sourcing quoted material. Do you have a personal objection to properly sourcing the material of others when you quote it or something?

    How come you take large volumes information from others, pass it off as your own, don't set it off in quotes, and don't attributed to the source who put it together for you even though PF rules and your source make it clear that if you use their material that you should properly attribute it?

    Are you sure that you are the person who should be criticizing the sourcing practices of others, you know, the folks that, unlike you, actually source the material they use?

    You seem kind of confused.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021

Share This Page