President Obama

[Wolf]

1. Yep. Which I've acknowledged--I'm only fighting the idea that equality of care equates to quality of care.

2. This is actually an advantage of universal health care that I appreciated.

3. That's a gross oversimplification, Edric, and you know it. Certainly, I'll admit that calling it "just and righteous" was hyperbole on my part for humor value. I have a twisted sense of humor, and I do things like that all the time. However, there's something to be said for the lure of high salaries and social prestige that attracts individuals of high skill and merit that might have applied their skills, perhaps less assiduously, elsewhere. There's something to be said for a tightly-regulated system that enables the health care providee to level claims against the providers should that care fail to fulfill their expectations. There's even something further to be said for an institutionalized system of crime and punishment that determines which of these claims are valid and which ones aren't. In a twisted and extreme way, it is "whatever gets you rewarded" and "whatever gets you punished," but dissect the technical meaning of the words you used: "whatever." All systems, everywhere, could be construed as possessing this quality. What gets you rewarded in the United States? A high number of satisfied patients, deans of medicine, colleagues, well-received peer reviewed articles, technical and procedural innovations. What gets you punished? Failing to meet the expectations of those same patients, administrators, colleagues, failure to produce academic work of substantial rigor and integrity, consistent inability to innovate on any scale, in any way. I think this does occur, though I acknowledge that frequently, the system falters and people are rewarded and punished unnecessarily: but not so much that I fail to find your comment somewhat uncharacterstically thoughtless.

EDIT: Ugh, I can't wait 'till Hwi takes over the night shift.

[Dragoon Knight]

2. Yeah. That absolutely is a good point: the more malpractice suits there are, the higher up insurance costs go, the more expensive health care is. There's probably a point where added litigation fails to improve health care proportional to its cost, however I will say that some, indeed, substantial litigation is necessary to make sure that health care is held to a high standard. The profession is so profitable that it needs to be observed and regulated with a careful eye. I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution.

Monitor the situation, definitely.  Make sure there are no Dr Nick Riviera's practicing.  But I'm talking about frivolous law suits, of which there are many.  On a related note, if the healthcare system was nationalised, it wouldn't be such a profitable profession.

3. Wait. So because they didn't say whether they'd prefer the UK system over the US one, I'm forced to assume that they do? I'm sorry, but if we're continuing in the spirit of fairness to the "middle ground" that you so graciously established in Point 1, I'm going to have to say that because they didn't tell me which system they'd prefer, I'm going to say that some people will prefer the UK one, some people will prefer the US one, but I have no data with which to make groundless, dubious and potentially-inflammatory points. All I heard was a lot of people telling me that it was crap, and if I do get sick, I shouldn't expect the same quality from the US health care that I was used to. Gee. Yeah, that's absolutely sufficent data with which to assume that the UK system is superior.

Again, I wasn't trying to insist that the people you spoke to would prefer the NHS - I only asked if you had asked them.  Since you haven't, my point-by-proxy is that you shouldn't use their testament as support for your side of the argument.

I then went on to say that all the people that I know prefer the NHS to the idea of the US system, which should be more than enough to counter your point entirely.  Again, not trying to suggest that everyone does, just that your argument along this vein was pretty moot.

I was hoping you'd prove me wrong and actually read the article, but this makes it clear that you didn't...

I did.  I found it one-sided and unnecessarily critical of foreign systems, without any reliable supporting references.  There are articles like that I can pull from the interwebs that would serve the same purpose of my defence of the NHS, but I deign not to use them out of respect for the intelligence of the posters here.

What I'm trying to prove, and what I've successfully proved, is that, ignoring the issue of equality of care, the US does indeed possess the highest quality of care.

That's exactly what I said.  But what I'm also saying is that equality of care is an essential part of the rating, whether you think it's unjustly weighted against the US or not.  Putting a price tag on medical care - and in some cases human lives - is bad enough in my eyes, but to then complain about providing care to "illegal aliens"... are you really saying that you don't think everyone is entitled to medical care if they can't pay?  Please, if nothing else, give a clear and definite answer to this, because I really don't like what your statements are leading me to believe. :(

...even if US health care is 18% better in terms of quality (I'll take this quote

Yes, cancer care (for example) might be 18% better...

as an admission of that)...

The only thing that I'm admitting there is that it's quite possible that cancer treatment rates are 18% better in the US than they are in the UK.  But think for a second what this really means.  How many cancer patients in the US aren't getting treatment?  How many can't afford it?  In the UK, we treat everyone - this, in turn, certainly means that we'll be overloaded almost constantly, with queues and criticisms.  But we're always trying to improve that, and most crucially, we try to help everyone.

That 18% figure is not one I put any measure of faith in.

In terms of quality, training of professionals, access to equipment, consistency of high-quality care... the US is better in every measureable respect. Sound fair to you?

Fair?  Pull the other one, it's got bells on. :P

Seriously, though, I agree with you that the US has medical excellence on its side.  It probably has the best, even compared to the UK and India and whatnot.  But it's far from a fair system, as Edric has pointed out in his post.

[Wolf]

And for all Dragoon's kvetching we're full circle!

Seriously, though, I agree with you that the US has medical excellence on its side.  It probably has the best, even compared to the UK and India and whatnot.  But it's far from a fair system, as Edric has pointed out in his post.

<-- This is exactly what I was getting at from the beginning, but it is a far cry from what you set out to prove earlier on in this debacle. The only other substantive argument you've posited is that you personally would prefer NHS, which is about as close to worthless a piece of information in a debate as you can get without actually going there. This isn't an insult: this is objectively true. You prefer NHS. My response is, so what? What credentials do you possess besides Scottishness that should compel my attention? It proves nothing.

EDIT: Not to mention that this is also in stark contrast to the comment that,

And regarding your point about medical excellence in the United States; yes, you have some excellent medical practitioners and research.  So does the UK.  So does India.  This isn't something that's exclusively in your favour.

Oh, but now it is? Give credit where credit is due!

In fact, you've gone to great lengths to prove exactly that: nothing. For every study Hwi or I pull out of the "interwebs" as you call them, you pull one out yourself, but do the legwork of discrediting yourself for me and say, "we can both keep pulling out articles, but in the end, the articles don't mean anything." Again, we're back to, "so what?" If my articles are worthless, and so are yours, why even begin to have a substantive debate? I'll get to this later, but this irritates me for another reason: despite the fact that you brought out dubious articles earlier doesn't seem to stop you from saying crap like this:

...but I deign not to use them out of respect for the intelligence of the posters here.

Yes you did. Your map, for instance, was the very crux of your sickening little diatribe about the idiocy of Americans. You don't think that counts? And you cry foul when we insult you, but then insult us in turn? Whatever you do, be consistent. Ugh, Scots.

And regarding this piece of work:

Again, I wasn't trying to insist that the people you spoke to would prefer the NHS - I only asked if you had asked them.  Since you haven't, my point-by-proxy is that you shouldn't use their testament as support for your side of the argument.

Oh, but I can. You see, we aren't arguing for mirror images the same thing like the vast majority of morons on the Internet. You set out to prove that NHS was superior to the US model--I don't know what you're trying to prove now, you see, you've admitted that the quality of care is superior in the US, but the equality of care is inferior, and so have I, so it's all a wash in the end--while I set out to prove that it's unclear that either system is necessarily superior. For those who can afford it--which in the US is a pretty wide majority--the quality of care is superior in a variety of areas. However, many can't, and they suffer. At the same time, in the UK, NHS provides a decent level of health care for all, but it's just that--decent. And in the UK, if you're a cancer patient, you have a one-fifths smaller chance of survival compared to a US one. The cost-benefit analysis is clear here: if less than 1/5 of the American public does not have access to health care, mathetmatically, the US system is demonstrably superior when it comes to cancer care. But, I don't have the data, and as I've said, that's not necessarily the argument I'm making. That's the one Hwi is, though, and she'll be on at 7. In any case, what I've said above is sufficient to answer this:

The only thing that I'm admitting there is that it's quite possible that cancer treatment rates are 18% better in the US than they are in the UK.  But think for a second what this really means.  How many cancer patients in the US aren't getting treatment?  How many can't afford it?  In the UK, we treat everyone - this, in turn, certainly means that we'll be overloaded almost constantly, with queues and criticisms.  But we're always trying to improve that, and most crucially, we try to help everyone.

Eh, let's see, what other garbage did you throw out there... honestly, your method of argumentation is pretty hard to follow because it goes something like this: assert extreme claim, criticize opposition's likewise-extreme response, then back down to moderate position without acknowledging it while snidely insulting opposition for remaining in the extreme. But what else... oh, this:

Please, if nothing else, give a clear and definite answer to this, because I really don't like what your statements are leading me to believe.

My answer? Yeah. You should get... what you pay for. Look, NHS isn't "free" health care--you all pay for it up front at the beginning of every year, and you all pay a little extra so you can cover those who can't or don't. Don't self-righteously hold the NHS up as an example of how you're "morally superior"--you aren't. All you've done is adjusted the payment model, and left some room for some people to cheat. Certainly, it's better if more people can have access to better health care, but all you and I differ on is which one of those things should happen first: more people, or better health care.

Fundamentally, we're in consensus about the state of US health care in relation to the UK's NHS. As sad as that is. Worse, though, that's... exactly what my "one-sided" article said: "Of course, this does not mean the U.S. health system is perfect. There is near-consensus on the need to address increasing costs, waste and the fact that too many Americans still lack insurance. But decision-makers and voters must beware ideological arguments and rankings that falsely depict idyllic socialist health systems. They do not exist." Seems pretty fair to me.

Oh, and no, I don't think referencing articles is an insult to the intelligence of the readers on this forum: I operate under the assumption that they can think for themselves.

[chatfsh]

I was wondering why my ears were burning

[Dragoon Knight]

More venom?  I'm surprised at you, Wolf.  I thought we'd almost reached a consensus about this.  I even went as far as believing a discussion on FED2k could come to a reasonable conclusion, with points being conceded from both sides.

But now you're calling me a "dick", and belittling my attempts to argue my point.  If my posts have given rise to this outburst, then I apologise.  However, I'll go over a few of your points and try to be as rational and clear as possible, in the hopes of avoiding another flare-up.

This is exactly what I was getting at from the beginning, but it is a far cry from what you set out to prove earlier on in this debacle. The only other substantive argument you've posited is that you personally would prefer NHS, which is about as close to worthless a piece of information in a debate as you can get without actually going there.

Going back to my first post - and every other post I've made in this topic about the NHS - the point that I'm trying to "prove" is that the NHS is a system preferable to that in the US (i.e. a national healthcare system is preferable to a private one).  My points in favour of this have been clear from the outset, and both you and Hwi claim to have "addressed" them, but yet I feel you haven't really done so.

You admit that having approximately 15% of your population without your insurance.  To quote a source that I find reliable (which I'll address further later on):

"Over 45 million Americans - including over 8 million children

[Wolf]

No, I think we're done. He's said it, I've said it, and you've said it, but we all agree about the fundamentals of this topic. However, he wants to have the right to say that he can prefer his system while trying to argue that we don't have the right to say that we can prefer our own. It isn't about facts, figures or arguments--part of the reason why he doesn't care about "articles"--it's just about whether or not he can make himself feel good about his country while simultaneously making us feel bad about our own. Sandbox 101.

EDIT: Yeah, I took out the "dick" comment. You were behaving like one, but I felt it was going too far to actually call you one outright. Oops! I'm not even reading your post, by the way. DOUBLE-EDIT: Oh, goddamn it, but I can't help myself. At a glance, mind you, apparently we can care about some articles now ("relaible" ones) and not others. I'm sorry I have it backwards--Hwi started it, sure, but she's got the right to say she prefers her system. You have the right to say you prefer yours. None of this is really important information, though.

And one last thing about treating patients "regardless of nationality," um, Dragoon, I thought Edric said that illegal immigrants can't get treatment under NHS? And that's why I said, "great!" And that's why you wanted to trap me into saying that I was a terrible person. Now, apparently, they can? I don't know, but it's your system, dude.

I stand by what I said in the first paragraph. We're not arguing about anything. You just want to be able to feel superior.

[Dragoon Knight]

Wolf, please read my post above before you insult me further.  I'll forgive a lot, but you're acting petty now.

EDIT: Hwi, I think it's better that I don't respond to your taxation views.  You probably know my stance on the matter, and we can save ourselves a lot of keyboard wear and tear if we just accept that we each have different views and that they're both "right", for a given definition of right.

I'll let someone else take this one. :P

[Wolf]

Dragoon, this may offend you, but I'm serious here--you aren't consistent. You claim, for example, that articles are worthless when we use them, insult us for using them, claim that you are better for not using them, then, just now, start qualifying why your articles are better. I don't even think the article I brought out was that unreasonable. Further, like I said above, and above that, and above that, I really do think we fundamentally agree about the advantages vs. drawbacks of each system. I just don't think you have the right to adopt the attitude that you have--frankly, the attitude that Hwi adopted earlier on that compelled you to comment in the first place. I'm sorry you think I'm being petty, but I really feel as if talking to you is like talking to a snide brick wall.

EDIT: I understand that I'm criticizing you personally very heavily now, and that may be insulting, but I feel that this criticism is valid. Further, you took a lot of shots at me and Hwi, why are you crying foul now?

[Dragoon Knight]

However, he wants to have the right to say that he can prefer his system while trying to argue that we don't have the right to say that we can prefer our own. It isn't about facts, figures or arguments--part of the reason why he doesn't care about "articles"--it's just about whether or not he can make himself feel good about his country while simultaneously making us feel bad about our own. Sandbox 101.

I already told you, the NHS is flawed, I admitted that from the start.  What I've been saying is that it's better than the US system.  If you'd actually read my post above, you'd know that I make distinctions between which articles to link, and that I apologised for any offense I might have caused you.

We're not arguing about anything. You just want to be able to feel superior.

I'm trying to treat you with respect, here.  Please show me the same courtesy.

You claim, for example, that articles are worthless when we use them, insult us for using them, claim that you are better for not using them, then, just now, start qualifying why your articles are better.

The articles that Hwi originally linked (the big list of them a few posts back) were outdated or from a paper called the Daily Mail.  Outdated articles are, in this argument, mostly irrelevant, due to the fact that the NHS is constantly improving.  They may still hold valid points, though, which is why I read them all and provide counter-points if they warrant it.  As for the Daily Mail, it's widely accepted in the UK as being prone to sensationalism.

Further, like I said above, and above that, and above that, I really do think we fundamentally agree about the advantages vs. drawbacks of each system. I just don't think you have the right to adopt the attitude that you have--frankly, the attitude that Hwi adopted earlier on that compelled you to comment in the first place.

My attitude is borne from a firm belief that a national health care service is superior to a private one.  It is the very same attitude that one adopts during any argument, when you believe that which you are arguing is correct.  I am not saying that the NHS is perfect, nor am I saying that it's the best way to run health care (there are other systems much more preferable) - I am simply saying that it is preferable to the system in the US.

I understand that I'm criticizing you personally very heavily now, and that may be insulting, but I feel that this criticism is valid. Further, you took a lot of shots at me and Hwi, why are you crying foul now?

What shots?  Where have I called you names or belittled your opinions?

[Wolf]

Ugh. This is far too much work for far too little marginal benefit.

1. I'm not saying that any system is necessarily better. They both have advantages and drawbacks. One has better quality of care, the other has better equality. That's what I'm saying. I skimmed your post above, and it's just more of the same. Nothing present compels me to believe that the NHS is better than the US model, or vice versa.

2. Crying foul again, eh? See Point 5.

3. See, I thought the article by a USC economics professor at that Providence paper was legitimate, which was the only paper I posted, and since you started dismissing pro-US articles right after I mentioned this, I assumed you were referring to it, despite the fact that, I felt, it was a fairly balanced commentary. Care to comment on this, specifically? Or are you limiting your source criticism only to Hwi?

4. You're saying that your attitude is born of the belief that your system is superior. Great. I think Hwi feels the same way. I'm trying not to be sarcastic or offensive, but I feel it pertinent to point out that you may be suffering from confirmation bias. I, personally, feel the US system is a superior one because it's better quality care covering a wide majority, but I'm not going so far as to say that it's necessarily and absolutely better than the NHS. I didn't know anything about either system before I engaged in this childish argument today, and I can't say I know much about either, afterwards. This is the last point we disagree on: despite all your moderation, all your compromise and consensus, you must always come back to saying that,

I am simply saying that it is preferable to the system in the US.

. That's the claim I'm refuting. You don't have enough data, and what data there is, is ambiguous. I'm not saying the US one is absolutely better in return, even, I'm just saying that, if anything, there's a tradeoff. That's what the evidence points to. Like with Americans being idiots, just let it go, Dragoon. Let it go. You don't have to take it to that next level--that's where you're wrong.

5. The juicy bits: I'm binding quote and /quote to copy and paste for this,

I'll forgive a lot, but you're acting petty now.

There are articles like that I can pull from the interwebs that would serve the same purpose of my defence of the NHS, but I deign not to use them out of respect for the intelligence of the posters here.

Let's ignore that you did end up pulling from the interwebs?

Please, if nothing else, give a clear and definite answer to this, because I really don't like what your statements are leading me to believe. Sad

Blatant baiting.

Nor should you be proud of a system of litigation that promotes said excellence through fear of prosecution.  What a strange thing to be proud of.

Distortion of my words, condescending attitude.

It's not a closed case just because your views support your side of the argument.  Your points do not negate the fact that money and/or profit are the driving factors behind medical care in the US; not patient care.  That is a system I can never condone, and I feel sorry for those living in countries with no national health service.

Arrogance. Self-righteousness.

Your counter-points don't address mine in any satisfactory manner, although I believe that you think they do.

More of the same.

This is just what's on the last 10 posts, there was more before that, I'm sure. Ultimately, this is the "attitude" that I think was undeserved, and what I think called for an "upping of the ante," if you will. I'm sorry that our play got a little too rough for you, but you have to admit that you were pretty condescending. Even then, the vast majority of what I did... was pretty much identical. I just got lazy towards the end because I got tired of putting up with it, and got more directly offensive. Sorry. Still, you're far from being in the position of righteously crying foul.

EDIT: This was to Hwi:

Er, you?  Seriously, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your own defence of a system that caters to only those who can afford it.  Nice job on completely dodging the issues that you couldn't answer, by the by.

Yeah, that's absolutely mature.

Yeah, I'm sorry it got too rough. We'll come up with a safety word for next time. But, really, this is just your problem: you have no problem playing slightly dirty as long as no one else does it to you, or dares to escalate it. That's analagous to you wanting to be able to say that the NHS is "immensely" superior while constantly belittling us for attempting to assert the same in favor of our own system--which I only do partially. You've got a pretty cool head under fire, Dragoon, I'll give you that. But you need a thicker skin.

EDIT: Look, I gotta go for a bit. Don't get me wrong, I'm far less angry at you than I sound--my writing style is... provactive, to say the least. As is yours. We've had some fun times, really, there have been some laughs, and I certainly don't hate you or think poorly of you. You've said some things that I think are ignorant or offensive, but, hey, we all do that at some point.

[Dragoon Knight]

I was afraid of this.  The old "clearly it's too rough for you" condescension.  "Come up with a safety word" - do you think it's original, or that I'm seriously asking you to stop the name-calling because I "can't take it"?.  I'm trying to be civil and show you respect; something that is clearly not being reciprocated now.  You and I both know that.  Since you didn't call me any names or belittle my views, I'll leave it at that, but I can give as good as I get.  I just maintain a healthy respect for you as a poster on these forums.

Regarding your Point 3; I've already explained why that article wasn't one that I was inclined to put much faith in.  The percentage was the one piece of information I took and countered, but any article that criticises the NHS as being "doddering" without providing any backing argument, or even criticising any specific part, is one that is prone to gross generalisation.  That is why I criticised it.

Most of Point 4 is fine with me; it's tantamount to saying "let's agree to disagree", which is what I've suggested with Hwi.  My consternation originally came from the US system not having any flaws directly attributed to it by US posters.  Further aggro was gained when my criticisms were met not with counter-points, but with criticisms against the NHS, which I then admitted to.

It's not a matter of "letting it go" (and this is another example of the "why are you being so stubborn, just let it go" denouncement).  I'm arguing a point, and we've come to a realisation: you, Wolf, believe that "you should get what you pay for".  That's not something I would have thought about you, and it's not a moral view I share, but it explains your arguments, and we can leave it at that.

Now, on to how you've misinterpreted my tone:

I'll forgive a lot, but you're acting petty now.

This was a direct response to name calling, which on the internet (or, indeed, anywhere else that an argument between adults is being conducted) is petty.  Note that I'm calling your actions petty, and not you.

There are articles like that I can pull from the interwebs that would serve the same purpose of my defence of the NHS, but I deign not to use them out of respect for the intelligence of the posters here.

As I've already qualified, there are certain types of articles that I don't personally use as sources; namely, those that are outdated or from sources I believe to be biased.  The term "interwebs" was used in a manner meant to lighten the atmosphere a little, not to berate anyone.

Please, if nothing else, give a clear and definite answer to this, because I really don't like what your statements are leading me to believe.

This wasn't baiting - this was a request for you to answer this specific part of my post, since we can all make the "mistake" of not answering every single point of an opponent's post.  The reason why I requested it was because I didn't want to believe that you hold the view that you do; that healthcare is for the wealthy, or "you get what you pay for".  You answered this, and I was satisfied with your answer.  I didn't like what it said about your morality, but that's neither here nor there, and none of my business.

Nor should you be proud of a system of litigation that promotes said excellence through fear of prosecution.  What a strange thing to be proud of.

I wasn't distorting your words.  I've been very careful to use quotes wherever possible throughout this debate, and those words were my own.  The last sentence was real confusion - I didn't understand how you could be proud of the system you have in the US.  Then, later on, you clarified your view and made a good point about how it makes your doctors better at what they do.  I even went as far as commending your doctors for having the fortitude to work under such conditions.

It's not a closed case just because your views support your side of the argument.  Your points do not negate the fact that money and/or profit are the driving factors behind medical care in the US; not patient care.  That is a system I can never condone, and I feel sorry for those living in countries with no national health service.

This was in response to your statement that the "case was closed".  This is the forum-post equivalent of saying "end of argument, my points have addressed all of yours".  They hadn't, and the debate wasn't over, and I pointed out why.  I then expressed a view borne from pity, not "arrogance" or "self-righteousness" - I really feel sorry for all the US citizens who can't afford healthcare.  Don't you?

Your counter-points don't address mine in any satisfactory manner, although I believe that you think they do.

This is praise from me, not arrogance.  It's me accepting that the arguments that a person has presented are (in his or her mind) completely negating the ones that I am making.  I only get that impression from a select few people, and it was genuinely pleasing to see it again on FED2k.  The way a person posts changes - they go from aggression to acceptance; from attack and defence to conciliation and compromise.  This is why I suggested that we leave it at "agree to disagree".

Er, you?  Seriously, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your own defence of a system that caters to only those who can afford it.  Nice job on completely dodging the issues that you couldn't answer, by the by.

Now this I apologise for.  In hindsight, it could have been worded in a way that wasn't as inflammatory.

Wolf, care to explain your own comments now?  Why you think I was being a "dick", and your baiting in the form of comments like:

Yeah, I'm sorry it got too rough. We'll come up with a safety word for next time.

I can assure you, you can fire all the names under the sun at me and I won't flinch.  Sticks and stones and all that.  But when I'm in a position of respecting the person doing it to me, I won't reply in kind, which leaves me with no means of "retaliation" other than to ask you to stop.  Take this as a sign of weakness if you like.

[Wolf]

Oh, this is ridiculous. We can go back and forth and back and forth talking about how we've misinterpreted each other's tone... I'm sure you've done it to me, apparently, I've done it to you, it doesn't matter, man. From the beginning, my goal has been to get you to give this a rest. But you really can't. And please don't make a grab for the high ground when you plainly don't deserve it, "I maintain a healthy respect for every poster on this forum." You do, and sometimes you don't. Look, this isn't about NHS anymore, and you know that. We've both done bad, but I'm not the one crying foul and asking for it to stop. And, though you've pre-empted the accusation, I don't think you're asking to stop out of weakness. I think it's hypocritical that you're asking to stop, and I think your method of argumentation is hypocritical. You may treat other posters for what passes for respect verbally, but when it comes to argumentation, you clearly apply a different standard to the arguments of others than you do to your own. The insanity regarding "articles and references" attests to that, as well as your flip-flopping back and forth between the NHS being necessarily better or being simply different than the US system. To me, that's far more offensive than name-calling or a condescending tone. And think about what you're doing: the NHS system, the line of argumentation about the idiocy of Americans, why are you going out of your way to criticize someone else's culture? We don't go out of our way finding things about Scotland to talk about. We don't care. Even if we did, what good does it do us to piss other people off? I'll say it here again, and I've said it three or four times before, but I don't believe that either system is obviously better than the other--I think both have drawbacks and advantages. This, surprisingly, is just the same as what I said about the American idiocy topic--I think all countries have about the same proportion of idiots in them. I think the data supports that, too.

I've been a dick, man, and I can admit that. The problem with you is that you can't. And that's, unsurprisingly, the same kind of problem that you've had in all of these discussions--you're convinced Americans are stupider when there's data that suggests otherwise. You're convinced NHS is superior to the US when there's data that suggests otherwise. We've had many, many opportunities to walk away and let bygones be bygones, but you just can't let go. And let me assure you, if you pursue this, you will lose. Not because you're a bad person or because you'll lose your cool: simply because you're asserting the extreme view. I'm not. I'm taking the road right down the middle, I'm admitting I don't know, and acknowledging that both sides have their problems. You want to pursue this, fine, but let me tell you that it's not something you can pursue, logically, to the end and win, and even if it was, it's not something that you, or any decent person would want to do.

EDIT: And for the record, go back and read over your last post. My read of that leads me to believe that you've only redoubled the same atmosphere of condescending, backhanded snideness that I've felt petty all along. Maybe I've just misinterpreted that, but, none of that is anything I want to respond to. "I don't like what it says about your morality." What the hell is that, man? I don't know of a way to point out why this is uncomfortable without having it seem like an insult to you--indeed, you have me walking on eggshells now--but the tone of this is just... bizarre for an intellectual discussion. Why should you be scared or afraid of my morality? Why should it bother you? Do we know each other? It's getting uncomfortable in an awkward way, Dragoon.

[Dragoon Knight]

Where I've been a "dick", I will apologise for it.  Where I've been stubborn, I will concede points.  Where I have been unclear, I will clarify.  Where I have been "extreme", I will justify.

I believe I have done all of these things during the course of this discussion.

This is a topic about Obama.  One of Obama's promises was to reform the health care system.  It seemed pertinent to the thread, while Scotland's various failings are not, hence they were not brought up in the discussion.  Feel free to start another thread.

I can admit if I've been a "dick", but I have been majoritarily courteous and understanding to you specifically.  Now you're insulting me again by claiming that my respect for you as an poster on these forums is false.  For the last time:

- My view is not extreme, it is shared by many people.

- There is no "winning" an argument, on the internet or anywhere else - only conciliation or storming off.

I will not pursue this debate any more, mostly because you seem unwilling to discuss the points further, but also because you've asked me to.  But not once have you apologised for your behaviour, and you seem intent on portraying me as some stubborn, arrogant extremist.  I understand that people get angry when arguing - I've done it a fair few times when conversing with idiots on these very forums.

The reason I didn't do so in this particular discussion was because:

- It was a well-established topic, which I didn't want to turn into a flame war.

- You've shown yourself to be an intelligent poster in past topics.

"Uncomfortable in an awkward way", you say.  I certainly feel uncomfortable.  "You get what you pay for"... you should read a book called Jennifer Government.  Alternate reality or not, it makes me very uncomfortable that there are people who hold the view that "healthcare is for those who can afford it".  It bothers me because there are undoubtedly others who hold the same view.  I really hope that Obama does something positive to the US health care system.

So we'll leave it at that, Wolf.  No winners, no losers; just another internet argument that's degraded into nitpicking and name calling.  I'll leave this particular argument (if not the whole topic) a good deal worse than when I entered it.  I lost a lot of respect for another member of these forums, and my view of America has been worsened that little bit more.  Go ahead and turn that into another slight against the stars and stripes; magnify it into yet another example of my arrogance and blatant anti-Americanism - your views mean less to me than they once did.  Not that I suppose this bothers you.

No, we don't know eachother, but I treat other members of this forum who have proven themselves to be capable of coherent, intelligent discussion, with a great deal of respect, because there are so very few people on the internet who exhibit these properties.

Wasn't that depressing?

[Wolf]

Yeah, it is. Again, at this point, it's not my intent to insult you--and my last few posts I've taken extra care to avoid just that--but I think you could have acted better. I still think you can act better. I appreciate that you try to be courteous and respectful, but in the course of this conversation I felt slighted well before you did. I thought, since you asked me directly to tell you where I felt you went wrong, that I would do so. I'm sorry that enraged you. To me, it reinforces the idea that you don't like to admit it when you're wrong--despite your protestations in the beginning of your last post. I agree that it sucks that arguments over the Internet almost always devolve to this, but it didn't have to. Well, well before it got to this point, Dragoon, I had basically conceded that we'd come to a consensus and that we agreed to disagree. Then you went back to your original view that I thought we'd moved away from. That frustrated me. I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you intended to say in good faith, but at the time, I felt slighted. But, again, I reiterate: I still think you can act better. Saying that you've lost respect for me and "America" because of me is just the continuing degernation of your rhetoric. You know that's ridiculous, and I know you know better than that. You can put a stop to that, or, you don't have to. It's totally up to you, and if you want to avoid incidents like this in the future, that's something you're going to have to change. You made some mistakes, we all did. I pointed them out, you didn't like that. Too bad. You shouldn't have asked me to point them out. Criticism isn't necessarily an insult.

Once again, you get what you pay for.

EDIT: And... no. It doesn't bother me. I'm shocked that you actually cared what I thought in the first place, quite frankly.

[Dragoon Knight]

There was an apology in there somewhere.  Thank you.

Now leave it at that.

[Wolf]

Let me do you one better: I apologize. It was not my intent, and it's something I have to work on.

And, good call. No more health care for a while.

[Edric O]

Another quick point while I have a bit of time...

Well, of course you are, because - how shall I put this - you're rich. In the past, you've indicated that you're a well-off professional in the banking industry, so of course the system works well for you.

Heh, if only

[Caid Ivik]

Do you not feel rich? Don't worry, that's natural. Not only does wealth not buy happiness or fulfillment - often it fails to even buy you a sense of being wealthy.

;D

For as men wane ((when they age)) in strength but grow in judgment and prudence, so it is that those things which in their youth appeared supportable and good, will turn out ((as they grow old)) unsupportable and bad, and where they ought to blame their judgment, they blame the times. In addition to this, human appetites being insatiable ((because by nature they have to be able to and want to desire everything, and to be able to effect little for themselves because of fortune)), there arises a continuous discontent in the human mind, and a weariness of the things they possess; which makes them find fault with the present times, praise the past, and desire the future

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy/Second_Book

[chatfsh]

Oh, and another set of data from the Census Bureau shows that 80% of American households made less than $97,032 in 2006. In other words, having a six-figure income makes you richer than 80% of households (i.e. families), never mind individuals.

So yeah, you're rich.

Very well, Edric.  If you define rich as earning or possessing more than 80% of the population, then yes, I suppose I might qualify as such.  But I personally feel that wealth, like so many other things is relative.  When I say that I don

[Dunenewt]

Now, if you gentlemen don

[chatfsh]

Student A deserves to be punished for wasting the best time of his life.

Spoken like someone who

[Andrew]

Student A deserves to be punished for wasting the best time of his life.

University life is definitely one of the best times in life, but student A should not be punished for making the decision to have a better life after graduation than student B. I don't have a problem with progressive taxes though.

Be a good student (top quartile), work hard and get good job, you're set for life. Only being a partier and failing might as well have gotten a job after high school and party.

Statistically where I live without post secondary education, you earn $25,000. With a bachelors degree you earn $40,000. If you specialize and get bachelors + certificates, it is higher. I think average income for business admin grads is $50k.

Spoken like someone who’s pissing away his university years.:P

It is possible to piss away university years and still get an education. Sure not top quartile, but your still better off than without any education. Unless of course the person picks a degree that has no jobs (basic arts, and does not go into teaching or specialize), or ends up not doing anything in the sector with degree. I slacked off getting ~70% average (I consider myself in the middle), but I also took some more difficult courses as I found them interesting (and failed some of them, but I learned stuff so that's all I care about, better than bird courses). Job opportunities with business degree are infinitely larger than without any degree. Any decent government job requires a degree, and any decent job requires education. degree on resume + hard worker = possible to move up income ladder quicker.

/obama

[chatfsh]

During my university years, I was definitely more of the type A student.  However, I wasn

[Andrew]

In Canada, everyone with a child (I think up to 5 years old or whenever they go to preschool) get $100 per month from government. This is taxed. So if you are poor and make <$9,600k a year you would keep all of it. If you are in next tax bracket (9,600-37,855) you end up paying back 15%. If you are in top tax bracket (37,855-75,769k) you end up paying back 22%. 75,769-123,184 is 26% and >123,184 is 29%. Sure high income are not getting as much as poor people, but if they make 125k a year they can easily afford day care without gov help. Lower income families making 20k a year would actually need the daycare money. Although the daycare funds were kinda pointless because every day care increased prices by $100 a month, so no one was better off, except day care centres, and maybe more competition for parents money. Even if your kid stays at home and doesn't go to daycare you still get the $100.

[chatfsh]

I realize that on the surface my ideas may sound like the rantings of a greedy, rich, American capitalist but that