Special interests’ on both sides in health fight

The slippery slope argument is such a red herring. Yes, many liberals hope that it will eventually become single-payer. But it can't do that on its own. If this country is going single-payer, it will need the votes to do so, no matter when it happens.

There is no comparison between the fears here. The stuff I have heard from the right is insane.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Spurt, you're really fucking naïve if you think both sides are launching equal amounts of disinformation on this issue. They are clearly not. I know that's a hard pill to swallow considering who you habitually back, but it's clearly true.
Click to expand...

stupid....where did i ever say it was equal....and moron....who have i been bashing in the APP about truths?

both sides have given misinformation, that is a fact, don't you act like a moron and deny it
 
Onceler said:
The slippery slope argument is such a red herring. Yes, many liberals hope that it will eventually become single-payer. But it can't do that on its own. If this country is going single-payer, it will need the votes to do so, no matter when it happens.

There is no comparison between the fears here. The stuff I have heard from the right is insane.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, it is not a slippery slope argument.....the comments state directly that they HOPE this bill allows single payer in the future....that is NOT a slippery slope argument....
 
Yurt said:
yet you guys require special interest groups.....odd....given nobody from your side listens to them and everyone from your side is a fucking angel that has read the bill in its entirety and not relied on anyone elses' opinion....

those on the opposite are telling people what they think is in the bill, some of it is wrong, some of it is right....and not everything from your side is right...you guys lambasted the single payer "fear".....yet, we now have video of many prominent dems, obama included (though obama a few years ago), saying that they HOPE this bill someday allows single payer

can i have whatever you're smoking
Click to expand...

It explains it right in the article you linked. Obama is getting these groups/organizations on his side to help pay for ads (which he can't pay for legally even if he wanted to) to get the truth out about healthcare reform. Without those ads, all people see are the lies about becoming Canada/England and killing old people.

And you should know the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy and isn't a reason to defeat a bill. Just because at some point in the future someone might try to introduce another bill to turn it into single payer isn't a reason to defeat a bill which will do a hell of a lot of good and isn't single payer. Defeat single payer when it comes up. Right now it's just an excuse tools like you use to not support something any rational individual who's not a millionaire should support.
 
Yurt said:
unfortunately, it is not a slippery slope argument.....the comments state directly that they HOPE this bill allows single payer in the future....that is NOT a slippery slope argument....
Click to expand...

Idiot, this BILL cannot allow single payer in the future. That would require a second bill. That's a slippery slope if ever there was one.
 
ib1yysguy said:
It explains it right in the article you linked. Obama is getting these groups/organizations on his side to help pay for ads (which he can't pay for legally even if he wanted to) to get the truth out about healthcare reform. Without those ads, all people see are the lies about becoming Canada/England and killing old people.

And you should know the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy and isn't a reason to defeat a bill. Just because at some point in the future someone might try to introduce another bill to turn it into single payer isn't a reason to defeat a bill which will do a hell of a lot of good and isn't single payer. Defeat single payer when it comes up. Right now it's just an excuse tools like you use to not support something any rational individual who's not a millionaire should support.
Click to expand...

oh yes....obama is going to say that he wants them to spread his misinformation....seriously.....get fucking real

like i told onceler....wanting this bill to pave the way and allow for a single payer system is NOT a slippery slope argument.....nice try, but fail
 
Yurt said:
and the single payer is a very big lie.....as it is government take over of healthcare.....
Click to expand...

No, single payer is government take over of health insurance. It's not socialized medicine. That would require the doctors to be employees of the government, ala England. Single payer is medicare for everyone. You wouldn't say that Medicare was a big takeover of the healthcare industry would you?
 
Yurt said:
unfortunately, it is not a slippery slope argument.....the comments state directly that they HOPE this bill allows single payer in the future....that is NOT a slippery slope argument....
Click to expand...

As I said - sure, a lot of liberals hope that will happen. But it CANNOT happen without new legislation.

Debate the bill on its own merits.
 
Yurt said:
oh yes....obama is going to say that he wants them to spread his misinformation....seriously.....get fucking real

like i told onceler....wanting this bill to pave the way and allow for a single payer system is NOT a slippery slope argument.....nice try, but fail
Click to expand...

I'll wait for you to find an ad by any of those interest groups with any information misrepresenting what is in HR 3200. It's not there.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Idiot, this BILL cannot allow single payer in the future. That would require a second bill. That's a slippery slope if ever there was one.
Click to expand...

this bill can pave the way....didn't you read the dems comments....this opens the door and given the dems hopes this allows a single payer system....starting with the government public option....this is no slippery slope, but an outright power grap....

you're kidding yourself dude....if you don't think this power grap will lead to the government wanting more, always has and always will
 
Yurt said:
this bill can pave the way....didn't you read the dems comments....this opens the door and given the dems hopes this allows a single payer system....starting with the government public option....this is no slippery slope, but an outright power grap....

you're kidding yourself dude....if you don't think this power grap will lead to the government wanting more, always has and always will
Click to expand...

That is basically the definition of a slippery slope fallacy, right there in bold.
 
Onceler said:
As I said - sure, a lot of liberals hope that will happen. But it CANNOT happen without new legislation.

Debate the bill on its own merits.
Click to expand...

thats funny......i remember many dems arguing the FISA and Patriot Act would allow further abuses....as their argument against it....the ACLU came out with a big one.....

debating something on its merits includes the INTENT of those creating the bill....once that bill becomes law, later courts can interpret things based on intent....further, if a bill's purpose is to get people accustom to an idea, then it is not a slippery slope idea, it is a geniune part of the debate.....

how you think it is not is beyone me
 
ib1yysguy said:
That is basically the definition of a slippery slope fallacy, right there in bold.
Click to expand...

i want to increase speed limits....

i know that if i immediately introduce a bill from 50 to 100mph....it will never fly.....so i purposefully introduce a bill for 75mph, with the full knowledge and intent that since i don't have the votes to get 100mph, my goal is to get people used to 25mph more per hour.....

are you saying that if i was on record saying that.....that my comments should not be discussed in any debate concerning the bill?
 
Yurt said:
i want to increase speed limits....

i know that if i immediately introduce a bill from 50 to 100mph....it will never fly.....so i purposefully introduce a bill for 75mph, with the full knowledge and intent that since i don't have the votes to get 100mph, my goal is to get people used to 25mph more per hour.....

are you saying that if i was on record saying that.....that my comments should not be discussed in any debate concerning the bill?
Click to expand...

Now you're trying to argue that slippery slope isn't a fallacy. Waste someone else's time. I'm not in the mood.

I'm just going to quote wiki and leave it for you to educate yourself:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope[/ame]
 
Not to mention, you wouldn't defeat a bill for a 70 mile an hour limit if 70 miles and hour was reasonable just because you didn't want to eventually see a 100 mile an hour speed limit. It wouldn't make any fucking sense. 70 can be reasonable without 100 being also reasonable. That's why it's a fallacy.
 
Yurt said:
thats funny......i remember many dems arguing the FISA and Patriot Act would allow further abuses....as their argument against it....the ACLU came out with a big one.....

debating something on its merits includes the INTENT of those creating the bill....once that bill becomes law, later courts can interpret things based on intent....further, if a bill's purpose is to get people accustom to an idea, then it is not a slippery slope idea, it is a geniune part of the debate.....

how you think it is not is beyone me
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that both sides have engaged in the "slippery slope" argument at times.

Why are you changing the topic, though? We're talking about the healthcare proposal right now. Or are you just trying to find hypocrisy wherever you can? Is that the mission here?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Now you're trying to argue that slippery slope isn't a fallacy. Waste someone else's time. I'm not in the mood.

I'm just going to quote wiki and leave it for you to educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Click to expand...

ib1yysguy said:
Not to mention, you wouldn't defeat a bill for a 70 mile an hour limit if 70 miles and hour was reasonable just because you didn't want to eventually see a 100 mile an hour speed limit. It wouldn't make any fucking sense. 70 can be reasonable without 100 being also reasonable. That's why it's a fallacy.
Click to expand...

dude.....the slippery slope argument is not about those who publically want something to happen, but can't make it happen now, so they introduce something watered down.....

if you had any knowledge in debate, you would know that when an opponent expressly states a stated desire, but acknowledges the inability to achieve that desire unless they take smaller steps, that such smaller steps are up for debate as it relates to intent and thus a real possible outcome......vs........a slippery slope possible outcome that the opponent THINKS may occur regardless of whether the other side wants this or not, and most often the other side's argument is:

we do not want that outcome....slippery slope.....

your stupidity is:

we want that outcome....slippery slope

it is no longer a slippery slope dumbass when your opponent has expressly said they want they goal and the step is but a milestone to that goal.....

get some education besides wiki
 
Onceler said:
I don't disagree that both sides have engaged in the "slippery slope" argument at times.

Why are you changing the topic, though? We're talking about the healthcare proposal right now. Or are you just trying to find hypocrisy wherever you can? Is that the mission here?
Click to expand...

you're right....i got carried away

and i am doing my best to debate this bill....and am not for it or against it at this point
 
The public option only leads down the road to single-payer if it works. If private insurers really offer a better product for a better price, single-payer won't happen. In the end, the opposition to the public option is simply worried that it will actually work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top