Health care provisions in H.R. 1

[Alcon]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

[Alcon]

Alcon,

I will take this slow, so that there is a chance you might understand it.

First, can you comprehend no "(i)ncreased federal spending"? 

Second, why do you want government bureaucrats making health care decisions?

Third, yes I understand that you favor "universal" government controlled health care, but have you ever considered that there are people who don't share your belief?

First, I can comprehend no increased federal spending, but that would require zero-sum cuts, as implied by my question.

Second, PiT favors universal health care, which is why I was asking him if that was the extent of his objection, and why I asked how I did.

Third, you will note that the post was addressed to PiT, and not CARLHAYDEN.

Finally, your apology is accepted in advance.  But I expected it to be taken even more slowly, as seems to be your style of record.

[Alcon]

Alcon,

First, no increased federal spending doesn't require any "zero-sum cuts."  Can't you understand no increased federal spending?

With the current increase in healthcare demand, of course it would.  Are you expecting Baby Boomers to vanish, or for us to be able to make up the Baby Boomer "health echo" with service optimization?  Again, if that is a false dichotomy, please explain why.

Second, I notice you still didn't answer my question about why you want bureaucrats making health care decision.

I did not say I did.  Strawman fallacy.

Third, I understand you don't like having your biases illustrated, but I will continue to do so as long as you continue to try to deceive.

I asked PiT a question under the context of his political views, not mine.  You assumed they were mine.  Your inference was unfounded.  Strawman fallacy.

[Alcon]

CARL, I haven't expressed my personal views in this topic at all.  Strawman #3.  Well-done.  In logical fallacy bowling, that's a turkey.

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

But if funding is limited, you have to put someone else on the ice floe.  How is putting a 24-year-old with 60 years to live out to pasture better than cutting care to a 75-year-old?  Lower treatment efficacy, just to avoid "age discrimination"?  Morally, not in terms of who has higher VEP rates.

I'm not understanding what you're advocating in this situation.

[Alcon]

    This is my mother, not me. I don't necessarily think that her position makes sense.

     Anyway, her approach to a situation like that would basically be that of triage. She thinks that survivability should be the major deciding factor.

Does this calculation include age without including survivability?  I find that hard to believe.  Either way, why would she oppose a system based on survivability because it included age?  I don't get that.

I wasn't meaning to paint you in a corner, I was actually asking what you see the solution of this as.  As not a purist free-marketer, nor a universal healthcare advocate (apparently) I'm curious.  It's tough stuff to deal with from any ideology, especially one skeptical of both.  What do you make of it?  I'm not sure what I do, either, really.

[Alcon]

CARL, for the fourth time, I have never expressed an opinion on this situation.

My assumptions weren't from a "collectivist" stance.  Here's the crux of my construct:

Do you have studies to support your contention that it is unreasonable to assume that increased demand for medical treatment (Baby Boomers, etc.) will be outpaced in every sphere by improvements in medical technology?  I find that contention improbable in, say, government-subsidized care for the demented elderly.  Stuff like that is not really affected by technology.  How would you maintain care without increasing federal funding, in a case like that?  Do you have evidence to show that medical improvements in treating other conditions will be enough to nullify the baby boomer "health boom" that is starting now?

[Alcon]

Before I respond to the rest of that, would you mind pointing out where I advocated collectivism?  That does not include instances where I was addressing PiT's opinion, or his mother's.  Please provide quotes.  Thank you. 

Note:  From now on, I will be doing this whenever you posit an assertion I've labeled inaccurate three times, without responding to the accusation of inaccuracy.