Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (16128)	4/5/2010 10:09:54 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

We are missing each other on the key point which is my belief that everyone needs to be covered properly. And then how best to do that. We can discuss that if you like, but that wasn't relevant to the point that we were discussing, which was your assertion that the PO would save money, so I ignored your comments about it in order to stay on point. If you want to discuss your "belief that everyone needs to be covered properly," state the question clearly, give me a few arguments for your position, and I'll engage. As stated, you haven't given me a clear topic to address. Yes, everyone does need health care from time to time. What "covered properly" means in that context is unclear. As is the relevance of belief. You have numbers from the CBO...vs your arbitrary and, yes, fanciful, logic. Hmmm. Just when I thought we had an understanding... <g> There's nothing either arbitrary or fanciful about my logic. If you think there is, then by all means challenge my logic so it can be corrected if need be. Throwing irrelevant assertions by your favorite authorities at me doesn't cut it. I expect a rationale from you, not "because the Pope said so," particularly when what the Pope said is off point. I don't recall ever arguing this. I said "If you want to argue that..." IF. No, you didn't ever argue it. Had you tried to, you would have realized sooner that the PO wasn't cheaper. I offered that "if" to suggest to you that the only way you could prevail would be to demonstrate that there would be less stuff done, which of course is not the case. Stop the silly analogies. I can do that. I only offered them because a straight presentation of a rationale doesn't seem to resonate with you. You don't engage the argument. I have no way of knowing why. On the chance that it's because don't follow the logic enough to engage it, maybe an analogy would help. It's common practice when you don't think your message is getting through to present it in a different format. Had you given some indication that you "got" the rationale even if you didn't agree with it, there would have been no analogies. In the future, I won't use them.