View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-10-2004, 14:07
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Oct. 8)

Jack, you win the award for most frequent use of the word "common" in a single post, however, common sense does not equal good sense. If (hypothetically) you lived in a nation of fools, would you advocate fools' sense? You are appealing to popularity (a logical fallacy) by claiming that Kerry ignores common sense, when you ought to be claiming that he ignores good sense (which is hopefully quantifiable, and not necessarily subject to the whims of a largely ill-informed populace).

Incidentally, regarding Canada, it is disingenuous to state that "a government committee decides how many hip replacements there will be every year". It isn't a matter of the government putting down a number, and the surgeons following it--it is a matter of the surgeons doing their procedures, and the government keeping track of the number performed, then budgeting resources to cover the cost of about the same number of procedures in the next year. In essence, they are fundamentally in touch with the needs of the patients, rather than conceiving of arbitrary funding formulae. Because of the larger influence of government, the public healthcare system requires patients to take a place in line and wait for their (major) procedures, rather than paying their way to the front of the line (as is often possible in America, with private clinics and the like). Of course, if it is medically necessary to have a procedure performed forthwith, it is done (and still paid for by the government) without any further questions asked. Waiting in line may be frustrating and painful, but consider that by paying your way ahead, you're simply prolonging the same situation in those who cannot afford to jump the line. (Note that partaking of the services of a private clinic is the same, since it could just as well perform the procedure on a poor person, as on a rich one.) This isn't just a matter of liberalism or conservatism, it's most importantly a matter of ethics.

In Canada (specifically Ontario), health insurance is government-run, and funded by taxes. All you have to do to receive medical services is show proof of medical insurance, which is issued to (essentially) every citizen and resident in the form of a "health card". We cringe at the idiocy of a system that doesn't guarantee medical services to its citizens and residents--the American politicians talk nonchalantly about millions of people without health insurance, people who, if faced with a life-threatening condition, would likely be bankrupted by the cost. Perhaps those people are fools, gambling that they will never be ill, and not planning for that strong possibility. More likely, they are reasonable people, who cannot afford to pay for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Will they be happy to find they’ve entered the ranks of the wealthy once the Kerry tax hike applies directly to them?
The anti-taxation spirit of the Boston Tea Party lives on in America, though there is no longer a monarchy that amasses its revenue from exploitation of the colonies; the vehemence of it all is amusing, but rather disturbing at the same time. They ought to be happy that they're rich. They ought to realize that it won't kill them to reduce their standard of living slightly, so that America can reduce the rampant poverty that plagues its cities. Perhaps they should learn to suck it up and pay, because getting cheated by a few who defraud social programs is preferable to forcing innocent, but nevertheless poor people to live in a ghetto. Once again, it is a question of ensuring a minimum standard of living for all--and if it means taxing the rich, or even the middle class to achieve that standard, so be it.

And Jack, regarding this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Jones
There’s a line in a film about the quintessential common man that goes: “I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.” How many in that audience didn’t look at Laura and just know she loves George? Is it not obvious to them also that Teresa prefers Heinz to Kerry. History is rife with instances where the common man would revolt against the Aristocrats who would “let them eat cake.” I can’t imagine the heart of America endearing a First Lady who would have them “go naked for a while.” Common sense tells us to judge a man by the company he keeps.
I'm sure that you have evidence of the very specific statements you made above. For example, show that "Teresa prefers Heinz to Kerry"--if it's obvious, you've probably good ironclad proof. Indeed, enlighten us as to approximately "[h]ow many in that audience didn’t look at Laura and just know she loves George?" I suspect that the rationale behind these statements is approximately equivalent to the rationale that Bush is unfit to lead, because he nearly choked on a pretzel, or fell off of a Segway. In other words, it's just stupid.
Reply With Quote