4 ms·

Ad hominems really don't help any arguments you have to make. Nor do a handful of tenuous analogies. The government is not a singular entity, but it does exerc

Ad hominems really don't help any arguments you have to make. Nor do a handful of tenuous analogies. The government is not a singular entity, but it does exercise some semblance of self-consistent control. The drug/insurance companies have no interest in minimizing their profits aside from following regulations so as to limit potential liability. If the drug companies can successfully lobby for less control then the government's bargaining power is impaired de facto.

subhobroto 7y ago
I repeat: if you have a point to make, prioritize it over pointing out my grammar or qualifying the way I present my comment. Really, say it because I have no idea what your position is and we have been communicating a bit at this point. You have repeated twice now that the government's bargaining power, is impaired. Yes, that's what I said in my parent comment 2 days ago. Why are you repeating what I said, to me? No, my previous comment was not ad hominem because I didn't know the position you were taking and I still dont know what position you have on the matter. I noticed tunnel vision on your part that was imparing the quality of the conversation and I suggested a technique I often follow myself. If you want to argue the semantics of an ad hominem, I am out of time. Is your point that the government's bargaining power, which is impaired, less than the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess? To clarify: My point, with the tenuous analogies included, is: the government's bargaining power, even after being severly impaired, is still superior to the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess when it comes to negotiating the prices of drugs that we need to get and be better. Other developed countries recognize this and exploit it to the benefit of their citizens. Perhaps we should think of something similar but outside government.
- defterGoose 7y ago
  Neither of us have the need to get further bogged down on this. My point of course is that functionally the government only has this bargaining power if 1: the majority of the people in the government see a change in the status quo as desirable, and 2: The will of those same people can't be subverted through means such as excessive lobbying. If both of those conditions aren't met, then saying that this bargaining power exists is essentially meaningless. If that wasn't clear from context, well maybe no amount of clarification can help. On a side note, questioning someone's motivation and/or ability to comprehend the relevant information and form opinions based on it is definitely a form of ad hominem, and definitely not the right way to start an attempt to clarify.

subhobroto 7y ago

I repeat: if you have a point to make, prioritize it over pointing out my grammar or qualifying the way I present my comment. Really, say it because I have no idea what your position is and we have been communicating a bit at this point. You have repeated twice now that the government's bargaining power, is impaired. Yes, that's what I said in my parent comment 2 days ago. Why are you repeating what I said, to me? No, my previous comment was not ad hominem because I didn't know the position you were taking and I still dont know what position you have on the matter. I noticed tunnel vision on your part that was imparing the quality of the conversation and I suggested a technique I often follow myself. If you want to argue the semantics of an ad hominem, I am out of time. Is your point that the government's bargaining power, which is impaired, less than the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess? To clarify: My point, with the tenuous analogies included, is: the government's bargaining power, even after being severly impaired, is still superior to the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess when it comes to negotiating the prices of drugs that we need to get and be better. Other developed countries recognize this and exploit it to the benefit of their citizens. Perhaps we should think of something similar but outside government.

defterGoose 7y ago
Neither of us have the need to get further bogged down on this. My point of course is that functionally the government only has this bargaining power if 1: the majority of the people in the government see a change in the status quo as desirable, and 2: The will of those same people can't be subverted through means such as excessive lobbying. If both of those conditions aren't met, then saying that this bargaining power exists is essentially meaningless. If that wasn't clear from context, well maybe no amount of clarification can help. On a side note, questioning someone's motivation and/or ability to comprehend the relevant information and form opinions based on it is definitely a form of ad hominem, and definitely not the right way to start an attempt to clarify.