4 ms·

I loved the Michael Moore movie Sicko. Regardless of what you think of him in general, he did a good job with it. What surprised me was the fact that 95% of wha

I loved the Michael Moore movie Sicko. Regardless of what you think of him in general, he did a good job with it. What surprised me was the fact that 95% of what he found was what insured people have to deal with. I feel like the only thing that has prevented our health insurance system from touching off a violent revolution is that severely ill people aren't exactly in top shape for carrying AK-47's into executive lobbies. The whole point of private health insurance is that sick people are the easiest to rob-- they don't fight back-- but they also have no money, so it's best to collect payment while they're young and well.

paulhauggis 14y ago
You actually took that movie seriously? Of course there is some truth somewhere in the movie, but the majority of it is stretched truths and shots intentionally doctored to make his point. "The whole point of private health insurance is that sick people are the easiest to rob-- they don't fight back-- but they also have no money, so it's best to collect payment while they're young and well." The whole point of a public healthcare system is that it forces you, at the threat of jail, to collect payments from you (essentially theft).
- viraptor 14y ago
  How does it force you? Or do you think of every tax as a theft?
  - VLM 14y ago
    He's intentionally missing the social contract that its in direct exchange for health care, which all people need. (edited to add: There's already a social contract that refusal to provide emergency room care to everyone means criminal prosecution of the hospital/docs involved... its unfair they're not allowed to collect money at gunpoint, but it would be much fairer if they were allowed to do so.) I oppose mcdonalds because at the point of a gun a policeman will demand I pay them. Sounds awful, especially if I omit the fact I already ate the burger and I'm gonna need to eat another in the near future and the analogy breaks down even further in that McD would need a local geographic licensed monopoly on all food sales such that everyone living in the area must buy burgers from them.
    - crusso 14y ago
      missing the social contract that its in direct exchange for health care, which all people need You're stating a moral imperative without indicating any boundaries. What are the limits of healthcare that are required to fulfill this supposed "social contract"?
      - VLM 14y ago
        Well played sir, I'll see your Continuum Fallacy and counter with a classic Argument to Moderation, your play sir.
        crusso 14y ago
        Throwing out fallacy names doesn't address the problem with your statement. You mentioned a Social Contract requiring healthcare. I'm asking you what the limits are of that supposed contract. If there aren't any in your view of morality, then be honest and say it. If there are, then throw us a bone and let us know where you think they lie.
        VLM 14y ago
        Aaand that would be a false dilemma fallacy, demanding that we as a nation should not change the system until a dude on the internet explains in full detail his theory of everything. Or the alternative that a dude on the internet should not speak an opinion on "X" until he accomplishes unrelated task "Y". The meta-point is it is a strong indication of consensus tipping point approaching for a culture when the opposition on a topic has nothing left but sophistry and fallacies to stand in the way of progress, morality, and civilization. There are certain analogies to creationism, AGW denial, opposition to gay marriage. I don't say that (solely, LOL) to tarnish the reputation of the opposition, but to focus on the similarity of technique in superficially unrelated topics, to draw attention to possibly unnoticed similarity of technique. Try to provide a logical argument for existing barbarism which I can't pick apart as a mere fallacy. I theorize there is no such argument, although proof of a negative is such a bummer. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and switch my position given a good enough argument, although I predict no argument exists at all, much less a good argument.

paulhauggis 14y ago

You actually took that movie seriously? Of course there is some truth somewhere in the movie, but the majority of it is stretched truths and shots intentionally doctored to make his point. "The whole point of private health insurance is that sick people are the easiest to rob-- they don't fight back-- but they also have no money, so it's best to collect payment while they're young and well." The whole point of a public healthcare system is that it forces you, at the threat of jail, to collect payments from you (essentially theft).

viraptor 14y ago
How does it force you? Or do you think of every tax as a theft?
- VLM 14y ago
  He's intentionally missing the social contract that its in direct exchange for health care, which all people need. (edited to add: There's already a social contract that refusal to provide emergency room care to everyone means criminal prosecution of the hospital/docs involved... its unfair they're not allowed to collect money at gunpoint, but it would be much fairer if they were allowed to do so.) I oppose mcdonalds because at the point of a gun a policeman will demand I pay them. Sounds awful, especially if I omit the fact I already ate the burger and I'm gonna need to eat another in the near future and the analogy breaks down even further in that McD would need a local geographic licensed monopoly on all food sales such that everyone living in the area must buy burgers from them.
  - crusso 14y ago
    missing the social contract that its in direct exchange for health care, which all people need You're stating a moral imperative without indicating any boundaries. What are the limits of healthcare that are required to fulfill this supposed "social contract"?
    - VLM 14y ago
      Well played sir, I'll see your Continuum Fallacy and counter with a classic Argument to Moderation, your play sir.
      - crusso 14y ago
        Throwing out fallacy names doesn't address the problem with your statement. You mentioned a Social Contract requiring healthcare. I'm asking you what the limits are of that supposed contract. If there aren't any in your view of morality, then be honest and say it. If there are, then throw us a bone and let us know where you think they lie.
        VLM 14y ago
        Aaand that would be a false dilemma fallacy, demanding that we as a nation should not change the system until a dude on the internet explains in full detail his theory of everything. Or the alternative that a dude on the internet should not speak an opinion on "X" until he accomplishes unrelated task "Y". The meta-point is it is a strong indication of consensus tipping point approaching for a culture when the opposition on a topic has nothing left but sophistry and fallacies to stand in the way of progress, morality, and civilization. There are certain analogies to creationism, AGW denial, opposition to gay marriage. I don't say that (solely, LOL) to tarnish the reputation of the opposition, but to focus on the similarity of technique in superficially unrelated topics, to draw attention to possibly unnoticed similarity of technique. Try to provide a logical argument for existing barbarism which I can't pick apart as a mere fallacy. I theorize there is no such argument, although proof of a negative is such a bummer. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and switch my position given a good enough argument, although I predict no argument exists at all, much less a good argument.