this should speed up healthcare reform???

[Larkin]

Let me get this straight you say I'm wrong with nothing like usual with you guys, then you on the Denmark issue you list Wikipedia as your source. Wow, you showed me.

That was completely worth you time to post and you completely pwned me. Damn you rule bro. And you using your entire lifetime as a source of greatness is ****ing awesome.

How many of those years are irrelevant do you think? Let me give you a hint, a ****load. But yes, lets count our experience in the real world when we're ****ing toddlers. That makes allot of sense. Wait...

 

[SkaarjMaster]

c'mon you crazy cats, socialism is where it's at.....cool man, cool...snap your fingers to that crazy beat.

 

[Grobut]

Let me get this straight you say I'm wrong with nothing like usual with you guys, then you on the Denmark issue you list Wikipedia as your source. Wow, you showed me.

The source is W.H.O. by proxy of wiki, i could have linked to W.H.O.'s own website, but their list is not as nice (it's sorted in alphabetic order, whereas the Wiki page has it nicely sorted by highest mortality down to the lowest, and shows tghe flag of every nation, it's easier to read).

Next time, try reading who the source is, instead of kneejerking over the proxy.

That was completely worth you time to post and you completely pwned me. Damn you rule bro. And you using your entire lifetime as a source of greatness is ****ing awesome.

Let me give you a hint...

How many of those years is irrelevent? Let me give you a guess, a ****load.

Marvelous, and very low brow, cudos.
Now tell me, how many years have you taken up residence in a Socialist country? surely a man of the world such as yourself has an extensive history to flaunt, and i look forward to hearing all about your exploits!

 

[Larkin]

The source is W.H.O. by proxy of wiki, i could have linked to W.H.O.'s own website, but their list is not as nice (it's sorted in alphabetic order, whereas the Wiki page has it nicely sorted by highest mortality down to the lowest, and shows tghe flag of every nation, it's easier to read).

Then link me to W.H.O's website, genius.

Next time, try reading who the source is, instead of kneejerking over the proxy.

Last I checked anyone can edit Wikipedia. Do you know why people get 0's on papers when they use wikipedia as a source. Take a shot in the dark why that could be.

Marvelous, and very low brow, cudos.
Now tell me, how many years have you taken up residence in a Socialist country? surely a man of the world such as yourself has an extensive history to flaunt, and i look forward to hearing all about your exploits!

I was SO using my experience here as a source of my knowledge. Oh right, that was you.

 

[dragonfliet]

The first line you have yet to proof otherwise. The second line I said as an extreme of socialism. I realize that most rational equal basis doesn't mean equal paid, but its HAS been done like that in the past, so its not out of the world to use that extreme. Its a very tiny difference anyway.

I gave a few examples of companies that use stock options (ownership in the company) as an example. I could dig up more if you'd like. Also, when has an everyone is always paid the same thing sort of a system ever taken place? I've not heard of it. Ever.

As for you failure to use notations on the wiki argument. If you go to the wiki page, you'll notice that when people say things, they put a number, which corresponds to a footnote. If you click on that number, it takes you to the footnote, where you may then peruse the source. You know, how academics do things. Here is the WHO page. Have fun disbelieving wikipedia and looking at every single country individually.

~Jason

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Last I checked anyone can edit Wikipedia. Do you know why people get 0's on papers when they use wikipedia as a source. Take a shot in the dark why that could be.

Because teachers are idiots and think like you do, apparently. High profile articles on Wikipedia are watched very closely, and there are lots of people that make sure edits to pages are legitimate. Is it always accurate? Nope. But I would say it's probably as accurate at any given moment as your library of Encyclopedias are. Additionally, a great deal of information on Wikipedia is SOURCED INFORMATION. Many times Wikipedia simply has things stated in a more plain way that is not incorrect, thus someone might source it for information (as is the case here). I know it's a lot of effort to visit a link and verify the source, but is it really too much to ask???

Bashing Wikipedia for being an erroneous source just makes you look dumb in this case. I did a quick search of suicide rates in Google and the results that came back in the first 5 slots made it obvious that data on that subject is inconsistent at best. But they did all agree that Denmark and the US are in the same group as far as average suicide ratios go.

 

[Larkin]

I gave a few examples of companies that use stock options (ownership in the company) as an example.

Which means what exactly? Your are a master of debating. Giving links with random stats and nothing else, Check. Give stupid example of companies, check. You rule bro. Then jump to conclusions of what it means, CHECK.

As for you failure to use notations on the wiki argument. If you go to the wiki page, you'll notice that when people say things, they put a number, which corresponds to a footnote. If you click on that number, it takes you to the footnote, where you may then peruse the source. You know, how academics do things. Here is the WHO page. Have fun disbelieving wikipedia and looking at every single country individually.

If this is a debate, as it clearly isn't, then you would use sources where you know the people editing the files are legit. It wouldn't be random people coming out of the wood work. Regardless, yes, allot of them are well put together, but allot of them aren't. As such, I don't accept it as a source. That is my stance on it. Call me stupid, call me retarded, call me whatever, but here is a great idea try to use wikipedia as a source and hand it over as professional work. See how well that goes. Oh right their stupid like teachers. God, it sure seems like everyone is stupid except you guys. Hmm...what did you guys tell me again? What was it?

Here is another thing. Calling me dumb ONLY is not a rebuttal, its not a argument, its a refusal.

 

[dragonfliet]

Because teachers are idiots and think like you do, apparently. High profile articles on Wikipedia are watched very closely, and there are lots of people that make sure edits to pages are legitimate. Is it always accurate? Nope. But I would say it's probably as accurate at any given moment as your library of Encyclopedias are. Additionally, a great deal of information on Wikipedia is SOURCED INFORMATION. Many times Wikipedia simply has things stated in a more plain way that is not incorrect, thus someone might source it for information (as is the case here). I know it's a lot of effort to visit a link and verify the source, but is it really too much to ask???

Bashing Wikipedia for being an erroneous source just makes you look dumb in this case. I did a quick search of suicide rates in Google and the results that came back in the first 5 slots made it obvious that data on that subject is inconsistent at best. But they did all agree that Denmark and the US are in the same group as far as average suicide ratios go.

Hear, hear. It took the information and compiled it into a reasonable and readable format and then provided the source for the data it was using. Wikipedia is by no means the be-all-end-all source and should be treated carefully, but there are plenty of times in which it is a perfectly reasonable, acceptable resource.

~Jason

 

[hal]

Hold on a minute... you're saying stock options amounts to socialism?

 

[dragonfliet]

Hold on a minute... you're saying stock options amounts to socialism?

As the employer is giving up a portion of ownership and the employee profits/loses based on the performance of the company, yes. Well, it is an application of socialism onto a capitalistic model, so it is really a hybrid system that's 90% capitalism, 10% socialism.

~Jason

 

[Larkin]

Dragonfliet, do you know why it was created in the first place?

and btw, admitting it was a hybrid was brilliant on your part. HI, I'm dragonfliet, and I'm arguing for socialism with a hybrid idea.....DURRR Only I'm smart enough to see the brilliance of what everyone else sees as stupidity.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

Guys I think you better chill out your posting might cause Larkin to have a heart attack, which may or may not be covered by his insurance.

 

[dragonfliet]

and btw, admitting it was a hybrid was brilliant on your part. HI, I'm dragonfliet, and I'm arguing for socialism with a hybrid idea.....DURRR Only I'm smart enough to see the brilliance of what everyone else sees as stupidity.

You'll notice that I said I'm a fan of hybrid systems in nearly every single post on the subject. Remember I'm telling you how stupid your Ayn Rand quote is by contextualizing how purely capitalist systems operated on an exploitative model and then how I showed how socialism/capitalism hybrids also make money (succeeding in the face of purely capitalist failures--seriously, nearly every other major US airline BUT southwest went bankrupt) and yet distribute the profits in a better, more fair and amenable way? Yeah. Those were good times.

I'm not a socialist. That being said, I do believe in socialized capitalistic structures (and if you argue that makes me a socialist I swear to god I will find you and hurt you). Anyone that preaches the virtue of a "pure" system is an idiot who is deluded by dreams of utopia and probably couldn't outwit a gerbil.

~Jason

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

this website blows goddammit haarg why did you close my thread

 

[Benfica]

Larkin, I don't even understand why you brought socialism here in the first place. But fine. Radical socialism that you have in mind, happened when govs nationalized banks or when the U.S. gov had to use tax money to bail out AIG. That's just taking people's money and property to support large entities (public sector, governments) that never benefits the people.

A "public option" would have been exactly the opposite (regarding money, not economic doctrine), because with it, a public entity would provide the same service in a sustainable way without tax money. You could even say that it improved capitalism because it would restore market competition.

Because a few blocked that idea, what you have now is subsidized health insurance that is even more costly than when this all started. It will be more expensive for the state and for the ones that are already insured. That's what you get when you follow dogmas and propaganda, instead of reason and common sense.

 

[dragonfliet]

Why are you even wasting your time. His Ayn Rand quotes were completely out of context, but he is too stupid too realize it. He has brainwashed by Fox News and the Republican party to believe any sort socialized program is evil "big government rabble rabble" trying to take his money. I know your intentions are good but you are seriously wasting your time, even I got tired of trolling this idiot.

It may sound dumb, but arguing with Larkin is some of the most fun I have on this forum. With other people, it is often the case of intelligent people getting a little bit too involved and it can be frustrating; especially when an otherwise good person is blind to your points (and you to theirs).

Arguing with Larkin, however, has none of that. He loses a point, ignores that, and starts an unrelated point. Loses on that point, ignores it, starts on an unrelated point. This cycle continues until he circles back to his original point, claims he proved the point and can't be bothered to dignify you with and answer and then changes the topic again. It's a sheer comedy of errors and I love it.

Also, arguing with Larkin is a great way to derail a thread that wasn't going anywhere in the first place except for people yelling at each other about things they've already yelled at, with the political insults growing fouler and less intelligent with every page.

Finally, anyone who says Atlus Shrugged is a great book must be beaten with a stick until they can no longer speak. It's in the bible.

~Jason

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

I know some people that think Atlas Shrugged is a good book but they all smoke a ton of pot.

 

[kiff]

A "public option" would have been exactly the opposite (regarding money, not economic doctrine), because with it, a public entity would provide the same service in a sustainable way without tax money.

except for that pesky $2.5 trillion startup fee... then it would be clear sailing like every other awesome federal program we've ever had. i mean, they're all only in the red by trillions (each).

yea, too bad we missed out on that one

You could even say that it improved capitalism because it would restore market competition.

and when it fails from abuse and mismanagement, they wouldn't bail them out, right? of course not... it's not like it's too large to fail or anyone would be depending on it. no? oh ok

 

[Benfica]

except for that pesky $2.5 trillion startup fee... then it would be clear sailing like every other awesome federal program we've ever had. i mean, they're all only in the red by trillions (each).

yea, too bad we missed out on that one

Probably one should consider the distinction between "public option" and subsidized access to it. The former lowers insurance costs and is self sustainable, while the latter of course raises state spending. These 2 methods converge to universal coverage, but they are different things.

and when it fails from abuse and mismanagement, they wouldn't bail them out, right? of course not... it's not like it's too large to fail or anyone would be depending on it. no? oh ok

That's speculation. Still, possible mismanagement doesn't prevent public insurance from being viable. Premiums always have to be adjusted according to all operational costs.

 

[kiff]

That's speculation.

no, that's historical fact of every federal social program we've ever had