The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Scot Dutchy]

Brian there are three threads about health care in America. One contains a big troll from 42. Is it possible to clear the mess up?

[Forty Two]

Man, what are you on? We don't agree. How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not abreast of the full facts of her claims?? I know you'd like me to just accept your word for what the exact claim was and what the exact evidence is or isn't, but it's never going to happen. You've got a long history of frankly bizarre interpretations of facts and indeed simple English sentences. So no, we don't agree.

Your goalposts nonsense - I did not move the goalposts. Stating additional evidence is not moving the goalposts.

You say I cannot know that she's not native American. Yes, I can know. Based on the evidence. If someone claims an ancestry, but they can't point to an ancestor of that heritage, then they are not that heritage. If, also, genealogists investigate the matter and find no such ancestor in that heritage, then they are not that heritage. It's up to the person making the claim to prove it, and if they can't I'm justified in rejecting their claim. That's how we know what we know.

You're just making a Sethian argument here, that we can't really "know" pretty much anything. Like when he argues against an atheist who says they know there isn't a god -- those atheists who do that don't generally claim absolute knowledge, but rather claim their knowledge based on an epistemology that we know things based on the evidence.

Now, I'm not going to engage much further with you about this, because you are not pleasant to talk to and you utilize tactics of a troll and an attacker, and you are the kind of person that is a denizen of the left wing mobs of Atheism-Plus, and the Freethoughtblogs ilk. I've tried to have calm discussions with you, and rational discussions, but your tactics are to constantly divert, deflect, and derail, trying more to wreck arguments than to have them. Your attacks on me, trying to paint me as dishonest are contrived, mendacious fabrications. I used to think Seth had overreacted to your garbage, but I'm beginning to see why he had a hard time holding back. I've about had enough.

[Forty Two]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

Stop it. Just stop it. I can't let this unfair criticism of 42's eminently logical and evidentiary claims go unchallenged. This is heinously heinous.

When did I say she "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path?"

I know, right? Where does L'Emmy get off? You and I are the new "us", bro.

I didn't opine that she lied to help her Ivy League career path. I just pointed out that her claim was false. It is. I wouldn't put it past her that she did it to boost her career as a harvard professor. She did, after all, put it in published materials. Unlike you, though, I don't claim to be a mind-reader.

[Forty Two]

You can't possibly know that she's not a Native American.

Exactly. In the same way you can't possibly know god does not exist. Warren, however, specifically claimed to be part-Cherokee, and neither family lore nor her grandfather's high cheek bones are sufficient evidence to back that claim up. So, yes, Warren made a claim she is yet to substantiate. A DNA test would do that if the claim is true.

That said, what has any of this got to do with single payer health care in the US?

It's a side-issue that came about because in the OP it's Elizabeth Warren speaking. So, she came up in the conversation, and then it broke off into this discussion because of the President's references to her as Pocahontas.

[Forty Two]

A typical 42 troll. No Trumpette wants to talk about health.

I created the thread, Scot Dutchy. I wanted to talk about the future of health care in the US. It's not my strategy to derail and deflect. That comes from certain other folks. However, I find it hard to resist being drawn down these side paths. I'll try to work on that, and step one is going to be to minimize my discussions with pErvin from now on, as I have concluded that there is no way to salvage anything there. He doesn't want to discuss anything, he just wants to figure out how to get a rise out of people. The moderators will not take action when he calls people retarded and other names, several of which they've been notified of over the past few days, and no action is apparently being taken. So, the only choice seems to be to start leaving his comments alone, and hopefully threads will stay on topic more.

[Brian Peacock]

OK, Warren may have claimed to have nominal minority heritage, but does that justify Trump referring to here as Pocahontas? Isn't it like calling Tim Scott 'Boy' or Bill Pascrell a 'Spic'?

[pErvinalia]

You say I cannot know that she's not native American. Yes, I can know. Based on the evidence.

You categorically can't. It is basic logic.

You're just making a Sethian argument here, that we can't really "know" pretty much anything. Like when he argues against an atheist who says they know there isn't a god -- those atheists who do that don't generally claim absolute knowledge, but rather claim their knowledge based on an epistemology that we know things based on the evidence.

As I asked above, is this the closest we are going to get to you admitting you were technically wrong?

And no atheist who isn't a 7 on Dawkins' scale and has any sort of intelligence claims to know that there isn't a god. It's just horrendous application of logic if someone does that.

..you are the kind of person that is a denizen of the left wing mobs of Atheism-Plus, and the Freethoughtblogs ilk.

You are just an utterly shameless liar. If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty you could review my posts here about A-Plus. I've hammered them mercilessly, and indeed was banned from their site within a day or two of signing up. I've also trolled the absolute fuck out of PZ Myers. A fact you could check if you were even slightly interested in not intentionally peddling bullshit.

I've about had enough.

What are you going to do about, big fella? Time for you to break out the adult colouring-in books and find a safe-space perhaps?

[Forty Two]

OK, Warren may have claimed to have nominal minority heritage, but does that justify Trump referring to here as Pocahontas? Isn't it like calling Tim Scott 'Boy' or Bill Pascrell a 'Spic'?

Different issue. But, I'll answer you. I think it is not Presidential, and it would be better if he didn't.

But... and here's the but - Elizabeth Warren had gone out on the road as "attack dog" of the Democrats against Trump. "What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their houses? What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their jobs? To root for people to lose their pensions? ...." She went on to call him a "small, insecure ,money-grubber who doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he makes a profit for himself... the kind of man who will never be President of the United States.." It was in response to her coming out and insulting the hell out of him - a "money-grubber?" "Small?" "Insecure?"

These are insults. And, in Trump's mind, he is not those things.

One who opposes Trump might say "but those things are true!" Well, if truthful insults are allowed, then what Trump did in response is also allowed. He pointed out that Warren claimed she was a native American, when she wasn't, and he gave her the sarcastic nickname of "Pocahontas" in retaliation for him being called, small, insecure, moneygrubbing, uncaring, only motivated by profit, who wants people thrown out of their house and jobs and to lose their pensions.

To me, if you want to be an attack dog and insult a Presidental candidate by calling him names like small and moneygrubbing, you might want to expect that if you went around pretending to be native American that that might be something that is mentioned in retaliation.

So, do I cringe when I hear Donald Trump say stuff, yes. But, I understand it, because he faces massive attacks like this all the time, and in today's instant-news Twitter world, if you do not move fast and react to one's attackers immediately and hard, then their attacks stick. Their attacks are the ones that survive. They remain unopposed. And, with Trump, he knows the news media is not on his side, so he does things like "Pocahontas" because he knows that will get the headlines going, and the press is forced to explain why she's being called Pocahontas, and the audience then is left with another message - that the attack-dog who self-righteously lambastes the character, partly by namecalling, has, herself, some issues and reasons to not be believed.

And, in the media its all about perception and general opinion, not about the merits of arguments. So, what Trump knows is that in that exchange, he and Warren are battling for public opinion, and that opinion is based on emotion, and the opinion will either be that Trump is a small, insecure, ineffectual, selfish, money-grubber, or that Warren is an ineffective senator who rose partly by lying and pretending she's native American and should be a subject of laughter and ridicule.

That's the political world we live in. I'd have no understanding for Trump on this if Warren had not started the namecalling. But, since she did, I get why he did it, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for Warren. You can't throw punches and expect not have a punch thrown at you.

[pErvinalia]

OK, Warren may have claimed to have nominal minority heritage, but does that justify Trump referring to here as Pocahontas? Isn't it like calling Tim Scott 'Boy' or Bill Pascrell a 'Spic'?

Different issue. But, I'll answer you. I think it is not Presidential, and it would be better if he didn't.

Too right. See what he came out with today? Something about a woman with low IQ bleeding from the face I think.

That's the political world we live in. I'd have no understanding for Trump on this if Warren had not started the namecalling. But, since she did, I get why he did it, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for Warren. You can't throw punches and expect not have a punch thrown at you.

Brian can speak for himself, and I'm sure he will... but he was referring to a potential insult to an entire race of people. Not about whether Trump was justified in slagging off Warren.

[Forty Two]

You say I cannot know that she's not native American. Yes, I can know. Based on the evidence.

You categorically can't. It is basic logic.

Basic logic includes epistemology. I don't need to be omniscient to know things. I can know, based on how e normally know things in daily life.

I'm not going to go down the road of how we really don't "know" anything. It can be said that I really don't "know" that there is an Elizabeth Warren, since I have never actually seen her. All the news articles and video I've seen can be contrived. So, I don't have absolute knowledge of her existence. But, I have experiential and empirical propositional knowledge.

Some people even argue that people really can't know that there are other people in the world, or that the universe actually exists. That's not the kind of knowledge anybody is referring to when we make assertions based on fact, and when we evaluate the assertions made by other people.

But, go on - keep arguing that "basic logic" means nothing can be concluded based on evidence.

You're just making a Sethian argument here, that we can't really "know" pretty much anything. Like when he argues against an atheist who says they know there isn't a god -- those atheists who do that don't generally claim absolute knowledge, but rather claim their knowledge based on an epistemology that we know things based on the evidence.

As I asked above, is this the closest we are going to get to you admitting you were technically wrong?

I'm not wrong. You're making a stupid argument.

And no atheist who isn't a 7 on Dawkins' scale and has any sort of intelligence claims to know that there isn't a god. It's just horrendous application of logic if someone does that.

You can't know that, based on your argument about knowledge.

..you are the kind of person that is a denizen of the left wing mobs of Atheism-Plus, and the Freethoughtblogs ilk.

You are just an utterly shameless liar. If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty you could review my posts here about A-Plus. I've trolled them mercilessly, and indeed was banned from their site within a day or two of signing up. I've also trolled the absolute fuck out of PZ Myers. A fact you could check if you were even slightly interested in not intentionally peddling bullshit.

I have no doubt that you trolled them mercilessly. That's what those folks do. I didn't say you were a denizen of Atheism Plus. I said you're LIKE them. And, you are. That's why you troll people mercilessly. You're a troll. They're trolls. You trolled trolls.

You've said you like to do that. That's part of what you like to do, to troll people and drive them off of forums. That kind of thing.

You are a lot like the the denizens of left wing mob-sites. It's party that trait that is so unpleasant about you.

I've about had enough.

What are you going to do about, big fella? Time for you to break out the adult colouring-in books and find a safe-space perhaps?

There you go again. No, I've already said. I'm going to have to just start minimizing my interactions with you.

Nice try to troll me there, again. Trying to get a reaction from me, right? You're an admitted troll. Go about your business.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. It would be better if all trump stuff was in the one thread. It's impossible to keep track of what was said in what thread, and all threads are covering the same ground at different times.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding Trumpcare, I saw an analysis today showing that a huge number of low income earners (the 22million figure from the CBO, I think), while able to get cheap insurance plans, will face an average deductable of $7000!. And Ryan has the gall to come out and say that people aren't going to be pushed off healthcare, they will just be exercising their choice not to get coverage. This sort of thing is why economic liberals and conservatives are basically evil incarnate. It's disingenuous double-speak to deflect from the fact that they really don't give one fuck about poor and disadvantaged people.

[Forty Two]

Regarding Trumpcare, I saw an analysis today showing that a huge number of low income earners (the 22million figure from the CBO, I think), while able to get cheap insurance plans, will face an average deductable of $7000!. And Ryan has the gall to come out and say that people aren't going to be pushed off healthcare, they will just be exercising their choice not to get coverage. This sort of thing is why economic liberals and conservatives are basically evil incarnate. It's disingenuous double-speak to deflect from the fact that they really don't give one fuck about poor and disadvantaged people.

That's pretty much what they're getting under Obamacare now. Bronze policies under Obamacare have deductibles in that range. I know, I have one. I gambled we would pay less (about $1,100 per month) for the Bronze plan (me, wife, 2 kids), than for the lower deductible plan (about $1,700 per month). The $600 per month difference add up to ....drum roll... $7,200... which is slightly above our applicable deductible.

That's the reality of Obamacare, all due respect to your superior knowledge, since you've purchased and priced exactly zero plans, whereas I've spent about a week every year for the last 7 years pricing, repricing and comparing available plans. When everything really started kicking in in 2013-2014 is when the big price hikes came into play, and the premiums immediately doubled, and then went up again about 50% for me the second year, and the deductibles went from fairly low to skyrocketed and now we are nearly at $7,000 for the year.

[pErvinalia]

You say I cannot know that she's not native American. Yes, I can know. Based on the evidence.

You categorically can't. It is basic logic.

Basic logic includes epistemology.

Can you substantiate that? There is a sub-branch of a sub-branch of logic called epistemic logic. Other than that, what does epistemology have to do with logic?

I don't need to be omniscient to know things. I can know, based on how e normally know things in daily life.

I'm not going to go down the road of how we really don't "know" anything. It can be said that I really don't "know" that there is an Elizabeth Warren, since I have never actually seen her. All the news articles and video I've seen can be contrived. So, I don't have absolute knowledge of her existence. But, I have experiential and empirical propositional knowledge.

Some people even argue that people really can't know that there are other people in the world, or that the universe actually exists. That's not the kind of knowledge anybody is referring to when we make assertions based on fact, and when we evaluate the assertions made by other people.

But, go on - keep arguing that "basic logic" means nothing can be concluded based on evidence.

That's all great, but this isn't what your original claim was. You originally said her claim that she was Native American was "false". That's a truth claim. Not a knowledge claim.

You're just making a Sethian argument here, that we can't really "know" pretty much anything. Like when he argues against an atheist who says they know there isn't a god -- those atheists who do that don't generally claim absolute knowledge, but rather claim their knowledge based on an epistemology that we know things based on the evidence.

As I asked above, is this the closest we are going to get to you admitting you were technically wrong?

I'm not wrong. You're making a stupid argument.

Oh right. So the vast majority of intellectual atheists who say that they don't know whether God exists or not because it's impossible to prove a negative of that type are actually making a stupid argument. Riiiight.

And no atheist who isn't a 7 on Dawkins' scale and has any sort of intelligence claims to know that there isn't a god. It's just horrendous application of logic if someone does that.

You can't know that, based on your argument about knowledge.

Trolololol.

..you are the kind of person that is a denizen of the left wing mobs of Atheism-Plus, and the Freethoughtblogs ilk.

You are just an utterly shameless liar. If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty you could review my posts here about A-Plus. I've trolled them mercilessly, and indeed was banned from their site within a day or two of signing up. I've also trolled the absolute fuck out of PZ Myers. A fact you could check if you were even slightly interested in not intentionally peddling bullshit.

I have no doubt that you trolled them mercilessly.

Absolute bullshit. You are utterly shameless. If you "had no doubt...", why the fuck did you just associate me with them?? Can you for one fucking post just stop shamelessly fucking lying.

That's what those folks do. I didn't say you were a denizen of Atheism Plus. I said you're LIKE them. And, you are. That's why you troll people mercilessly. You're a troll. They're trolls. You trolled trolls.

WTF?!? They absolutely aren't trolls. They genuinely believe the shit they come out with. You are literally just pulling shit out of your arse at this point in an attempt to deflect from the fact that you made an utterly baseless claim, primarily I assume because you felt entitled to just say any old pejorative shit because your feelings were hurt by me calling out your lying. And what's even more idiotic about this is that EVERYONE who wasn't a nutbag regressive like them, trolled the fuck out of them. Including 90% of people on this site who commented on the issue. I'm not going searching, but I'd bet both testicles that YOU trolled them too. And rightly so. They are some of the most ridiculous people on the planet. Are you going to claim that you didn't troll them? Be careful here, as I and Hermit will eventually go and search your posts and see exactly what you said about them.

I've about had enough.

What are you going to do about, big fella? Time for you to break out the adult colouring-in books and find a safe-space perhaps?

There you go again. No, I've already said. I'm going to have to just start minimizing my interactions with you.

You've got a glass jaw. You have no problem trolling ridiculous idiots like AIDS SKRILLEX and random purple haired feminist lesbians, but you whine like a baby when your own ridiculousness gets thrown back at you.

Nice try to troll me there, again. Trying to get a reaction from me, right? You're an admitted troll.

This shit here is actually the biggest bit of trolling that goes on in our interactions. I've logically and reasonably addressed this nonsense so many times, and in virtually all cases you don't address my points about it. You just trot this bullshit out and then run away when you get called on it. Fuck off with your glass jawed shit. You are as big a troll as anybody else on this site.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding Trumpcare, I saw an analysis today showing that a huge number of low income earners (the 22million figure from the CBO, I think), while able to get cheap insurance plans, will face an average deductable of $7000!. And Ryan has the gall to come out and say that people aren't going to be pushed off healthcare, they will just be exercising their choice not to get coverage. This sort of thing is why economic liberals and conservatives are basically evil incarnate. It's disingenuous double-speak to deflect from the fact that they really don't give one fuck about poor and disadvantaged people.

That's pretty much what they're getting under Obamacare now. Bronze policies under Obamacare have deductibles in that range. I know, I have one.

You're not a low income earner. The analysis I saw said that the average deductible for subsidised people was US$200 or so. I should also point out that the $7000 figure was in Strayan dollars, so that would be more like $5000 Mercan, perhaps?

That's the reality of Obamacare, all due respect to your superior knowledge, since you've purchased and priced exactly zero plans, whereas I've spent about a week every year for the last 7 years pricing, repricing and comparing available plans.

Don't try and make clever arguments. Your personal anecdote doesn't trump (no pun intended) population wide research.