the new health care?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh jeez Joe, this whole post would be one big rant/whine fest if it weren't for the last few paragraphs. You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I. This is the reality of our world and the nature of man. We are a "me, myself and I" creatures. There's nothing particularly wrong with being selfish and voting with your interest in mind. You're free to make decisions that are best for your family and I expect others to do the same. This is what is meant by selfish not the colloquial sense of the word.

Selfish: (adj) 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others ; 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

Self-interest (n): 1. regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others; 2. personal interest or advantage.

I disagree with you conclusion that we are "selfish" creatures. It is not our doom to be "devoted to or caring only for oneself". Perhaps it is your choice to be so, it my desire not to be so. (See my thread on selfishness and human nature - I await with interest your response to the questions posed).

"Selfish" is the word you chose and it has a specific meaning. "[V]oting with your interest in mind." is different than voting selfishly. I agree that it is appropriate to "vot[e] with my [personal interest or advantage] in mind" as, hopefully, I am in the best position to understand my own interests. It is inappropriate for me to vote selfishly and in a manner that promotes my "personal interest or advantage" "regardless of [the interests of] others[.]" You want to play with the big boys little man, say what you mean and mean what you say.

Originally Posted by saden1

Your opinion and discursiveness of "promote the general welfare" is duly noted. Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted.

Then let me simplify the error in your imperfect analogy that you attempt to assert as a truism. – In setting forth the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, the express language of the Preamble explicitly states that the Federal Government must “provide for the common defense”. It is impossible for the federal government “to provide for the common defense” if it does not fund defense spending. No such express language exists for UHC. Thus, no mandate for such spending exists unless it can be determined that UHC would “promote the General Welfare.” Whether a system of UHC would, in fact, now “promote the General Welfare” is debatable. As such, whether enacting a UHC system in the US may or may not be within the origin, scope or purpose of the Constitution while defense spending most certainly is.

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't deal in hypotheticals and I am well trained in the art of seeing right through fallacious arguments presenting fictitious numbers. You're at the grown up table Joe, don't swing your dangling legs - it's impolite. I will grant you that wait time will increase and I have suggested that this is a problem we'll faces with or without UHC.

You don’t deal in hypotheticals?? You’re entire belief system is based on hypotheticals which you assert as truisms… but I digress [and before you go all kettle/pot ranty – I acknowledge that this is true of my belief system as well].

Well, despite you’re oh so extensive training, you seem unable to recognize a predicate to an argument. The numbers in the predicate question are irrelevant and used only to roughly reflect what everyone with any actual knowledge of the current health care system seems to expect as the likely effect of UHC on that system. -- But fine, I’ll try to walk you through again. Now pay attention -- and remember THIS IS NOT THE ARGUMENT but simply the predicate to it: If an action by the federal government increases the welfare of a small group of society by some degree while at the same time decreasing the welfare of a much larger group of society by a some degree, has the federal government “promoted the general welfare”? Still with me? Good. Carefully read the next paragraph in my original post. … Back yet? Okay, this next part is tricky so stay with me --- Did you notice how the following paragraph made an assertion rather than posing a question. That’s called an “argument”.

Argument (n) … 4. A statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

The argument I assert, for which the question is predicate, is that reasonable people may disagree over whether an action that has positive effects for one portion of society but negative effects to others “promotes the general welfare”.

To be clear - I agree that, as a practical matter the ultimate answer to the predicate question turns on correctly identifying the groups affected and the actual degrees of change (which in turn requires further definitions). The fact that so many variables exist in the predicate question only reinforces the validity of the actual argument presented.

Originally Posted by saden1

Note to all "you folks," the above quoted text is a perfect example of an ignorable argument each and every time.

Next time, try actually getting to the argument before you ignore it.

Originally Posted by saden1

Implicitly implying that the subject of general welfare is debatable but common defense is not? Perhaps you also think it's reasonable to argue against common defense?

“Implicitly implying” ?? ---- Digging deep for a non-existent meaning within the statement aren’t we. I’ll give you a pass on this because you’re still working on basic concepts and your training apparently didn’t equip you to follow multi-sentence arguments.

Quick follow-up lesson: whereas my predicate question did not contain the assertion of truth being argued, your leading questions incorrectly assert that I assert (1) the general subject of general welfare is debatable but the general subject of common defense is not; and (2) Somehow I think it’s reasonable to argue against a common defense. See how my question was not an argument but yours are? Awkward and sloppy arguments, but arguments nonetheless. I guess it’s a first step.

As to (1): Providing funding for the common defense is not debatable. Providing funding for the general welfare is not debatable. What constitutes each is debatable. Given the costs, coverage and care provided by the current system and the costs, coverage and care expected to be provided by a UHC system (particularly as proposed by Obama), it is a reasonable position to hold that implementing UHC will not “promote the general welfare”.

As to (2): wow, just wow. I concede, I cannot see how this assertion is “implicitly implied” by my assertion. I mean, seriously, you got me. See, to me, this is the classic example of an ignorable argument – it is so unrelated to any point made in my assertion that, even if I could figure out your logic, I wouldn’t bother to refute it.

Originally Posted by saden1

When you say "I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family" you're acting selfishly.

Again, sloppy, sloppy argument and English. Preliminarily, you only quote the assertion but ignore the included disclaimers. I said: “I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few) unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those who cannot help themselves”

First, there was no qualification at all on my willingness to sacrifice the few luxuries I am able to provide my family. To be clear, I am willing to sacrifice these luxuries for the needs of others if it can be shown that the need is real, my family’s sacrifice will help alleviate the need, and the sacrifice made bears some reasonable relationship to the need. Further, in terms of sacrificing things beyond mere luxuries, I made it very clear to everyone but you, apparently, that if the need is dire and those in need cannot help themselves, I will place the needs of others over the needs of my family. In each case, I made it clear that I am willing to place the interests of others over my own.

Selfish means what it means: “devoted to or caring only for oneself”. Unlike you I understand words have defined terms and I strive to use words within the context of their definitions. When I say I am unwilling to sacrifice anything I give to my family, I meant just that. I strive to give selflessly to my family always. In determining whether I will give selflessly to others, my first consideration is the needs of my wife and children. Thus, in giving selflessly to my family, and not as selflessly to others, I am not acting selfishly. I am simply prioritizing the needs of others.

Originally Posted by saden1

Selfish is not limited to the realm of what you do for yourself. In action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet.

NO. You’re just so wrong. Given your sloppy use of it, please don’t lecture me as to what English means. I am not “one” with these things. I am individual within the various corporate wholes and, as such, I am responsible for my actions within those entities. If an entity acts selfishly, I may be complicit in the entity’s selfishness but not necessarily so. If I am tirelessly working to change the selfish attitude of the corporate whole, am I selfish? By definition - No.

Originally Posted by saden1

Hearing this constant false choice and deference given to the current system is so tiresome and ignorable.

It is only a “false choice” because you disagree with the precept. As you have stated many times – you assert there is no justification for failing to cover all people. You can argue this point, but it is not, in and of itself inherently true or false. The statement I indicated seems to be held by many reasonable, good people. Because it is a choice contrary to your beliefs, however, you deem it “false”. Prove it as false. No matter how hard you argue it, however, it will always be an opionion not a fact.

Originally Posted by saden1

Sticks and stones may break an ordinary man's bones but I'm Superman, Robin Hood, and Genghis Khan all rolled into a single Superforce. Calaacal na ga dhaaf.

Hence reinforcing the quote to which you respond. Very convincing. Rag tag lama dhago ee wuxuu ku tago ayaa la tusiya.

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. "You folks" membership is an open membership. You're free to join or leave as you please. You're not required to play ping-pong, swim, or box if you don't wish to do so.

No. It's not an open club. It a label you mockingly apply to individuals who disagree with you and is appplicable as you see fit. Ultimately, it applies to anyone who does not see the brilliance of saden and buy into his leap of faith.