|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: This just in, republicans have no problem with socialized medicine... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How is medical insurance that is only available to high-ranking state officials anything like socialized medicine, which is available to everyone? Just because its subsidized?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Republicans consistently campaign against the very thing they take advantage of... Exhibit B: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - Season 27 - TV Series | Comedy Central US
In the mind of many Republicans, socialized medicine is conflated with welfare. They think it is a give away. Yes, they do think that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thank you, CS, for showing us how biased you are. No Taz, thank you for showing us how biased you are. Do you have no intention of debating at all? Do you just want to sling shit? You staked a position by making claims in the OP. I asked two questions to better understand your position. And now you're telling me I'm a biased republican. Do you really not know anything about debating or are you just trolling here?
Would you like to write to publishers of dictionaries to change their definition of what socialized medicine is to exclude your rich republican politicians? I don't know, I'm asking here. Like anytime else, when I'm not sure what someone is talking about, I go to wikipedia....
quote: So I'll ask again: How is medical insurance that is only available to high-ranking state officials anything like socialized medicine, which is available to everyone? Just because its subsidized?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How is medical insurance that is only available to high-ranking state officials anything like socialized medicine, which is available to everyone?
It IS 'socialized' medicine. The fact that it only covers high ranking officials, makes it UNFAIR socialized healthcare. It is 'for everyone'. The fact that it only covers some people makes it UNFAIRLY 'for everyone' That don't make no sense. Are you just using the term 'socialized' because it is subsidized?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I clicked your link and went to the first definition:
quote: Epic fail. Your's is from the "Medical Dictionary", the second one. The third one is the same from what I just quoted from wiki:
quote: Are you taking the position that when the liberals are arguing for socialized medicine that they are arguing for medicine for just a subset of the people. And that what we see mentiond in the OP, high ranking officials getting cheap insurance, is a part of the socialized medicine that the liberals are arguing for. Why then, would they be using it against the other side? Shouldn't Taz be championing this example as a success of the pursuit of socialized medicine? That can't be it. No, you must just be doing what you always do. Scan the thread for a potential semantic error, browse the internet for a page that says something against the person you're replying to, copy and past and then post. You're not forwarding the debate, you're not even debating at all, and you're breaking the rules. You really have no worth here, please just stop posting. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Taxpayers are paying for the healthcare of high ranking officials. These officials fight against the same kind of care for their taxpayers. Is that fair? No, its hypocritical bullshit.
I dont care what you choose to call it. Well, that was what I was questioning.
Btw, reading the wiki link you posted, you really cut short on that quote didnt you? ... Im guessing you just missed the last part by mistake. I did miss that last part by mistake. However, I am familiar with people using it perjoratively. (Is that what you think Taz is doing?) I honestly don't know just what people are referring to when they throw around the phrase "socialized medicine". Hence my questioning.
In reality though, socialized healthcare, would be any kind of goverment subsidized healthcare. What reality? (the dictionary and wikipedia disagree with you) But let's accept that as the definition for now. I helped a VA hospital last month That's socialized medicine then.
If you want it for everyone, like the rest of the developed world, you want universal healthcare. Alrighty. So the guy in question would be for socialized medicine (he's getting it), but apparently he is against universal healthcare. There's no contradiction there... sure, he's a real jerk, but doesn't that remove the hypocracy that Taz seems to be hinting at?
Taxpayers are paying for entitlements for these guys, but are fighting to make sure, no one else gets the same entitlements. Thats just not fair. Of course its not fair. This makes him a real asshole. I'm not really getting the socialized medicine bit.
[EDIT] From your posts in this thread, it seems you are perfectly OK, with the goverment paying for healthcare, as long as the only benificiaries are high ranking officials and not the regular taxpayers. Is it so? What!? No. What on earth did I type that makes you think that? Honestly, please quote me so I know what the fuck is going on here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It is 'for everyone'
Could you point me in the direction of how I can get this same healthcare that gov't officials get? I think I qualify as being a part of "everyone". No, ergo this isn't socialized medicine. Thank you for making one of my points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not following. Did you, or did you not, say:
It is 'for everyone' ? I was saying that if "socialized medicine" means that it is "for everyone", then this guys health insurance isn't "socialized medicine" because it is only for some.
Of course it isn't. But it IS government funded/subsidized.... Thus, my second question for this thread, which has yet to be answered:
quote: Also:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Except that he says he's for universal health care and against socialized medicine. But in practice he's for socialized medicine and against universal health care. We typically call that "hypocrisy." I didn't know that about him. I'm just going by what's been presented in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I would say it is "socialized" because it is essentially funded by tax payers. Okay then. So, technically, this guy could be for a form of "socialilzed medicine" in the sense that its "essentially funded by tax payers", and also be against a form of "socialilzed medicine" in the sense that its "universal healthcare", and not be contradictory, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Obviously the term "socialized medicine" is defined in more ways than just the CS accepted definition. Obviously, I never said that I accept only one defintion.
quote:Socialized medicine - Wikipedia quote:Source Yes, we know you can look stuff up on the internet. Do you care to debate at all? If you can't stop violating the forum guidlines then please just stop posting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do I have to reconstruct the whole argument with you again. My argument has been interrogative...
It seems I have to do this a lot. Maybe you should look towards yourself for the problem.
Lets see you started with this.
CS writes:
Message 2 How is medical insurance that is only available to high-ranking state officials anything like socialized medicine, which is available to everyone? Just because its subsidized? You clearly are stating that this is what you accept as the definition for "socialized medicine". Do you see this symbol "?" at the end of my sentances? That indicates that they are questions and not statements. I was in no way making the statement you're accusing me of. I was trying to determine what Taz meant by the words that he chose to use.
When you were shown that that is not the only definition for the term you responded with this.
Epic fail. Your's is from the "Medical Dictionary", the second one. Message 17Still don't see the epic fail. You were clearly shown there were other definitions, but seemingly refuse to accept them, because your next statement was The third one is the same from what I just quoted from wiki:
As if this is some sort of exoneration.
No. What I did was explain to you why Taz could not have been using your definition:
quote: I never denied that the other definitions exist.
I never stated that your idea was not a valid definition. All I have stated is that there are other definitions for the term which you seem to have wanted to deny as having any validity. But you hardly even did that. Before this post, I've received just 16 words from you that you actually wrote yourself and not just copy-n-pasted:
quote: And I immidiately responded thay you had my position wrong.
You made the argument that this is not socialized medicine we are talking about. Asking questions about the intended meaning of a used word is not arguing what that word must mean.
I am providing evidence that the term has many more meanings than the one that you seem to think is the most important. We all have access to the internet and can look up the definitions of words. You're not providing anything at all. You're a parrot, a droid, worthless.
What do you want me to add to these posts showing that you are wrong. There are times when someone makes a glaring mistake the only and best thing to do is to post the info that shows the glaring mistake. I am not sure what you and AdminPD expected me to say in the post. You really don't understand what debating is, do you? Its not taking pot-shots from the sidelines with copy-n-pastes whenever you see a semantic error. That's childish shenanigans.
You clearly were unwilling to accept that you definition was not the sole definition of the term. Completely false. Epic fail. You're a waste of my time. Explaining to you the basics of debating and how to read english is laboring. When I stop replying to you, don't think its because some of some sort of victory of yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Technically contradictory? Perhaps no. Hypocritical? Hell yes. I think the phrase "socialized medicine" gets thrown around too loosly and its adding confusion to the actual issues that are important fot the US. When people like Taz use these 'buzz phrases' in technically incorrect usage, especially in hate-bait posts like his OP, they're just adding to the bi-partisanship that cripples our politics. People who do want socialized medicine should focus on people like Taz and get them to stop fucking it up, instead of focusing on me for asking what is meant by the phrase.
The main reason I have heard that Conservatives do not want Universal health care is that they don't want their taxes to go towards paying for someone else's healthcare. However, these guys have no problem USING taxpayer money to pay for their healthcare. No doubt some of them are simply hypocritical jerks... But, I can see a place for a line between taxing people to subsidize healthcare for some people and taxing people to subsidize healthcare for everyone. Its a pretty complicated issue though, so specifics on that line placement should probably be a thread of its own. Honetsly though, I'm not even that interested in participating in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Should the "some people" include a guy rich enough to put five million dollars of his own money into a campaign against subsidized healthcare? In some cases it could. Should a vet loose all his benfits if he wins the lottery? I dunno.
Only it seems to me that if he can do that, he can probably get along without subsidized healthcare. I bet he could. Perhaps the argument should be against high-level politicians receving these benefits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That isn't what he's doing. What is he doing?
That's not what this thread is. What this thread be?
No, I would say that the fault of that lies in the politicians who do the exact opposite they campaign on. The politicians who have their own agenda in mind as opposed to the people's. Then that's where the arguments should go.
These guys, the guys in the OP, are the types who scream to their constituents about "socialism" and "Obamacare"...... yet they take TAXPAYER money to pay for THEIR healthcare. I don't know the details... but as I said, being against subsidized healthcare for everyone is not he same as being against any kind of subsidized healthcare at all.
Like DA said: these people are rich enough to pay for their bills outright. Hell, they don't even NEED insurance. Is it based soley on needs? You don't NEED internet access
But, they are more than happy to get you riled up to be more than happy to pay exorbitant amounts. Why? I don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024