On Universal Health Care
February 8th, 2008 by EyeOnWinerMore of Dave’s “empathy”:
if you have a heart, and think about it, I don’t see how anyone could be against universal health care and still sleep at night.
Allow me to spill some knowledge on Mr. Winer.
First, it must be said that I am personally in favor of government-funded health care for children. They don’t have a choice in the matter, so we need to protect them from their parent’s poor choices.
There are at least three very reasonable arguments against “universal” health care.
1. The government has issues doing even simple things well or efficiently. — Health care is anything but simple. Obviously if universal health care is necessary, this problem might be something we’re willing to accept. As such, this isn’t really a reason of its own, but it certainly magnifies the other reasons.
2a. Subsidizing other people’s poor choices. — Back in 2002 Dave was a tremendously unhealthy person. He had bypass surgery that was necessary, in large part, because of his poor choices. The argument that people will make better choices if they have to pay for them themselves is a weak one, as people are notoriously bad at planning and evaluating the long-term consequences of their actions. What’s more, being seriously ill is typically a worse punishment than having to pay for being seriously ill. But, why should I have to pay for Dave’s unhealthy lifestyle? Why should I subsidize people who have anonymous, unprotected sex? Why should I help to fund those so lazy that they can’t bring themselves to do even a modicum of exercise? The reason so many people are for universal health care is because they hear stories about some sympathetic, healthy (but financially destitute), person who has some bad luck and can’t afford the random illness they ended up with. The reason many people are against it, is because “universal” health care is not limited to those situations, but also encompasses people like the Dave who don’t take care of their bodies until it’s almost too late, and then want other people to foot the bill.
2b. I’d like to keep my civil rights, thank you. — If the government is paying for your health care, don’t you think they could start to control a pretty significant portion of your life? They could easily pass laws saying that certain people could not get health care: smokers, people who drink more often than the government wants, people who don’t exercise enough, people who eat too many fatty foods… the list goes on, and on. It would actually be a pretty good idea. The typical counter-argument is: “If you don’t want to follow the rules, you can always buy your own health insurance.” It’s a decent, libertarian retort… but it assumes that universal health care won’t put most of the other standard health insurance companies out of business (or price them out of a huge portion of the market), which isn’t something I’m willing to bank on.
3. Staving off the nanny-state. — Actions should have consequences. Failing to buy health insurance is a calculated risk, and typically a bad idea. If you decide you don’t want health insurance, you should be able to do that and not pay for it. Having the government tell me what I must and must not purchase doesn’t really sit well with me. You want to live without health insurance? Fine, but I don’t think those of us who are smarter than you should be forced to clean up after your mess.
That said, I understand that not everyone can afford health insurance, and that problem has many solutions that do not involve the government getting into the health insurance business. Expanding medicaid or forcing employers to insure their employees, for example.
Dave tries to ignore these issues by assuming that there’s a lot of “luck” involved in health care. There’s not. It’s not “unlucky” when people who could afford health care choose not to. It’s not “luck” that they’d rather have a new car than insure themselves against medical disasters. There’s nothing “lucky” about it. You fall into one of three categories: you cannot afford health care, you will not afford health care, or you have health care. There are really no other options. Most people (even conservatives) agree that the first group should get some help. The difference of opinion is about that second group.
You see these adults who wear expensive clothes, drive fancy cars, and live in posh neighborhoods complain that even they cannot afford private health insurance, completely ignoring the fact that if they traded in their BMW for a Toyota, stopped buying designer clothes, and maybe ate out fewer times a month they could easily afford the best health care in the country. If they don’t want to insure themselves, so be it… but don’t ask me to do it for them.
So not only are there some reasonable arguments that universal health care is a bad idea, there’s also the concept that there are better ideas. Of course, people like Dave (who only think in slogans and utopian ideals) don’t really understand the practical problems and more subtle ideological and behavioral caveats involved with the concept of universal health care.
The point, though, is not that Dave has the wrong stance on health care, although I believe he does, the point is that this is just another example of Dave polarizing the discussion… when he says
if you have a heart, and think about it, I don’t see how anyone could be against universal health care and still sleep at night.
What he’s really saying is: “If you don’t agree with me, you either have no heart, no brain, or no conscience,” which is neither an effective method of debate nor is it indicative of a well-thought-out belief.
UPDATE: Dave linked to this post via twitter. He deserves kudos for that.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I usually lean to the right on most things, but universal healthcare isn’t one of them. I lived in Canada for 6 years and was treated through a series of knee surgeries those 6 years. I had great care and minimal paperwork.
Some notes: 1. There’s a business aspect to universal healthcare that many people ignore. Healthcare keeps people in bad, dead-end jobs because they can’t afford to leave and give it up. Having your own healthcare doesn’t tie you to a job and encourages more startups and entrepreneurial initiatives with lower startup costs. 2. If done correctly (and I do agree with you that the gov seldom does things correctly) there are billions of dollars in savings to you and me in the paperwork processing alone. No more need for Insurance thieves to be covering their butt in paperwork. 3. If included, we can lower the costs of malpractice insurance and lawsuits that drive our healthcare costs up.
#1 is enough for me to think about starting up a business.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
You left out one category — people whom the health insurance industry refuses to sell insurance to. That’s a much broader category than you’d think, as my family learned in 2002-2003 when we were uninsured and tried to buy private coverage in California.
Essentially, if you’ve ever had any health issue whatsoever in your life — even trivial stuff like having broken a bone or appendicitis — and then you go to buy individual health insurance, you’re likely to find that your options are either prohibitively expensive or flat-out nonexistent.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
1. The government has issues doing even simple things well or efficiently The current system in the US is a mess. You pay far more for less care. it is destroying the competitiveness of businesses (except the healthcare industry). The USA spends more per capita than any other industrialised nation and yet is ranked lower and has worse overage than those ‘inefficient’ systems. If the current system was so good, why have the current debate?
2a. Subsidizing other people’s poor choices Its not someone’s choice to get cancer, have an accident, have genetic diseases or just be unlucky. Even the healthiest persons can get very sick and can need expensive medication. Why should someone die because they are unlucky or make a bad decision (as if you have never made a stupid decision?!)
2b. I’d like to keep my civil rights, thank you-3. Staving off the nanny-state These two are linked in that you live in a democratic society….if people dont want a nanny state or their civil liberties taken away…make it clear that is not what you want. There is democratic oversight which is to ensure that 2b and 3 dont happen. You can’t have civil liberties if your dead.
But its your country, if you want crappy over priced healthcare that benefits no one and destroys your nations economic competertivness and increases social segregation between the haves and have-nots….go for it. The rest of the developed world and increasingly developing world has made its choice. It miht not be perfect but its better than the US system.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
national payer health care=less expensive for society and as good or better outcomes. there’s a reason that almost every other industrialized nation on earth does it that way. look at the stats.
a lot of health stuff is chance—pure genetics or evironmental stuff (you grow up in a roach infested apartment in the Bronx).
As far as civil rights, I don’t know of any industrialized country with national health care that uses health care to rob people of their civil rights.
As for the nanny state argument, you end up paying for people who are not insured anyway. Hospitals do not turn away sick people who show up at the ER. If they can’t pay, you pay one way or another.
Who loses with single payer health care? Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, some health care practitioners (won’t be able to charge as much). Society at large benefits tremendously.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
People deserve to be looked after.
They will become better if they feel they are looked after. They will be nicer. They will be more compassionate. They will work harder, smile more and help others.
Governments are for people by people
if they are bad at things
perhaps it is because nobody cares for them….
February 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Overall a good argument against nationalized health care, but your being in favor of gov’t health care for children is typical of the prevailing socialist mindset that leads to these debates in the first place — “Welfare for people I think deserve it, but no one else!” is even more hypocritical than “Welfare for all.”
Since children are so helpless, we obviously need to “protect them from their parent’s poor choices” by removing them to a gov’t safe house at birth.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I was denied for health insurance coverage for two reasons:
1) I ran my own business at the time, so I couldn’t apply for group coverage. 2) I was denied personal coverage in California because I am on birth control. Yes, that IS what the denial letter stated. “We refuse to provide you health insurance because you have prescription medication.”
Where does that leave me? I went for years with no insurance, but that wasn’t exactly my choice.
After that incident, I suddenly got interested in universal health care. Previously (perhaps like you) I hadn’t realized one could even be declined for health care if they were in good health like I was/am.
-Erica
February 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
This is one case where I’m fully in Winer’s camp. I’ve known several people who are contribute to society and stay out of trouble yet when they lost their job they couldn’t get insurance. To clarify, no matter how MUCH MONEY they had, they couldn’t find anyone willing to give them insurance.
Winer is right and this is a foolish post by EOW.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Lots of good points here… all of which have reasonable rebuttals, but that’s not the point. This quote really illustrates my point:
“Winer is right and this is a foolish post by EOW.”
Not “I agree for the following reasons…” but “You’re a fool if you disagree with me.”
That’s not what this country needs on any issue, let alone this one. The first thing we need to decide is if we (as a country) WANT universal health care. Then, if so, we have to figure out which plan sucks the least. Universal healthcare advocates calling those on the other side heartless, stupid, foolish, and the like is certainly not winning anyone’s support.
(As for the suggestion that I’m a hypocrite because I want people who cannot legally buy their own health insurance to be provided health insurance by the government… I think you need to take another look at the definition of the word.)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I know I saw universal health care in a number of European countries and it was horrible. People who wanted good healthcare just went to private doctors and basically had to pay a premium to get good care. Not that there aren’t good doctors in these countries, but they’re much harder to find. Not to mention their taxes are so high in order to support the added costs.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
EOW, you’re just plain paranoid. He didn’t say you’re wrong if you disagree with him, he says your post is foolish. Of course you make it personal. Can you discuss anything without revealing your pathetic neuroses? I’m beginning to think we’re obsessing about the wrong a$$hole, maybe we should start looking into what makes you tick Mr. EOW.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Not “I agree for the following reasons…” but “You’re a fool if you disagree with me.”
That’s not what I said As un-mcd already said you’re coming off as paranoid. I said it was a foolish post, not that you’re a fool.
Secondly, you ignored what came before that comment and just cut out the end. I find your post foolish because of just what I said before. I know too many people who can’t get insurance. And I’ve worked at clinics and seen many other turned away also. I’ve seen private business owners have their insurance taken away when they became sick. Not a single one of your ‘reasons’ give a solution to these problems, problems that have been presented to you by others also.
Yet you just clip the last sentence in my post to make a point? You’ve been covering winer too long. He’s rubbing off on you.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
And what, exactly, is foolish about having a difference of opinion with someone? What purpose did adding that little invective at the end serve?
No purpose whatsoever, actually. All you did was devalue your point by hurling insults. I’m not going to delete your post as Dave would… but let’s be realistic. There’s not a “right” answer here, there are different opinions, and you gain more ground by respecting those who disagree with you than trying to belittle them.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
This blog succeeds when it is about winer and his insanity. This blog fails when it is about the political opinions of Mr. EOW.
We all know you’re a conservative. We don’t care. While conservatives and liberals may disagree over winer’s political sentiments, we can all agree on one thing: dave winer is an asshole. Let’s stick to that subject that unites us, please?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
You’re the one focused on the politics here, Zaphodim… I’m focused on the polarizing nature of Dave’s political discourse.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
You should check out Dave’s contribution to the Gillmor News Gang podcast:
http://newsgang.net/gangitem/id=7237
Dave shows how he no patience for opinions different from his own.
Tony Perkins is invited to represent a conservatives view of the primaries and Dave asks him a tough question:
“Why do you like GW?”
Later he says “This is not productive.” and he drops off the call.
Civilized debate is NOT in the man’s arsenal of social skills.
He definately reminds me of my father when it comes to politics. Quick to anger and slow to heal.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:08 am
“All you did was devalue your point by hurling insults.”
You’re joking right? You can’t be serious. You’re a fool is an insult. Your post is foolish is not. Here’s the definition of foolish:
lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion
And that’s exactly how I see your post. To leave out a complete segment of non-insured is lacking in sense and judgment. And you still haven’t given an answer about that segment. Instead you’re on some bizarre rant about my insulting you and how you’re (wow) not going to deleted it like winer would?
This is just bizarre. I could call your post ignorant, foolish, short-sighted, none of them is an insult to you.
I’m pretty amazed. I’ve enjoyed your site for a long time, but I’ve never seen you this winer like.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Sorry you feel that way, and I understand that this is what passes for “debate” for most folks on the left (and it’s even worse on the right) but there’s absolutely nothing you gain from calling me, my opinion, or this post (depending on how semantic you want to get) “foolish”, is there? (to say nothing of the fact that you didn’t support the assertion with any sort of logic, you just tossed it out there)
“I could call your post ignorant, foolish, short-sighted, none of them is an insult to you.”
While (maybe) technically true, I think we both know that from a practical perspective, it’s a load of crap. In terms of the civility of a discussion or debate, any of those are going to have the same effect: to alienate your listener. If that’s what you’re going for, fine, but I think that’s done far too often already.
You keep focusing on the substantive issue of the debate because you really want to argue it. That isn’t (and wasn’t) the point. The point is that this is an issue on which reasonable people can (and will) differ, and this country would be far better served by a little more listening and a little less invective and religion.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:31 am
markd, this is one of the many lunatic refuges and eyeonwiner is a refugee. i’m the big indian in cuckoo’s nest, the guy who hurls the sink through the window, and on a good day the rest of the pricks here are the people in theinsanse asylym who play with their shit and dream of sucking on mama’s tit and flail out at the cruel world and are brave as long as they can do it behind a locked door ina locked building, where no one can see how small their peepee is. you’ve arrived at the end of the road my friend. but think positive, theirs no where but up from here. may the force be with you. eric schmidt.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I’m beginning to think we’re obsessing about the wrong a$$hole, maybe we should start looking into what makes you tick Mr. EOW.
That would be entertaining, but getting snippy in a political argument is hardly cause for throwing Eye under a bus.
I tune out most of Winer’s political rants because they are thimble deep and he brooks no disagreement. His tweets during political debates are proof of that. He’s like the crazy drunk ranting at a TV screen from his seat at the end of the bar. Who wants to hear that?
February 9th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I read this blog because it’s amusing to read about Dave Winer not because I want to hear arguments against the welfair state or left wing politics.
Stay on point please or you will loose me as a subscriber.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am
stick to what you know like the advisers board for rss.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“Stay on point please or you will loose me as a subscriber.”
If you don’t think this is on point, you probably should unsubscribe.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
McD,
One of my favorite “writing” bloggers always writes with lower case (”mcd” impersonation here) and she always goes straight for the personal invective too. But life is full of mysteries…
What is always important to me are the ideas… and the drama. Yes the drama fills the time. While I wait for the consultant to login to check out the server and find the next point of contention.
Anyway, it’s EOW’s fucking blog and he should be allowed to write it as he sees it. This is not some commerical site lite:
http://www.eyeonwiner.com
No this site is a gift for the lonely hearts that like to study humanity and discuss what makes it tick: as exemplified by one specific internet curmudgeon. It passes the time and we ALL learn something in the exercise.
“We are all Winers”: self-righteous, pig-headed at times, angry, occassionally decent but yet… self-serving glory hounds. In other words, complex personas worth studing.
OK. Heathcare. I wish the state would offer effective services for all that need it.
Would there be abuse of the services? Un-huh. Tweak the system. Would it cost more than education? Probably. Tweak it.
I also think that using anecdotal examples to justify not moving towards any state funded services if a poor argument… not a foolish one… a rather clever political tactic to create a view of us versus “them”.
Us is the hardworking people that probably have coverage and good jobs… “them” is those ——, ——-,——–, lazy,—– types that waste “our” money. Let them eat the leftovers.
So, what’s Dave up to today?
February 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“If you don’t think this is on point, you probably should unsubscribe.”
Why? Do you intend this blog to be a critique of left wing politics?
February 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“Anyway, it’s EOW’s fucking blog and he should be allowed to write it as he sees it.”
Sure, I don’t think anyone is saying EOW shouldn’t write about right wing politics and social policy but it does dilute the subject matter of the blog and as a reader I think it is helpful to provide such feed back as “I don’t like this.”
February 9th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I understand the point you’re trying to make, Noah, but it’s just not correct. Read it all again. This time, instead of trying to find holes in the political arguments, just read it and try to understand what’s being said. Then read this paragraph:
So the point is pretty clearly laid out here. That so many cannot hear an opinion they disagree with without fixating on it is disappointing, to say the least, and it’s probably part of the problem.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:31 am
“So the point is pretty clearly laid out here. That so many cannot hear an opinion they disagree with without fixating on it is disappointing, to say the least, and it’s probably part of the problem.”
Yes, after 11 long (and by your explanation, irrelevant) paragraphs of political opinions. It’s not so much that I fixated on anything, only that I lost focus before making it to the last paragraph.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation EOW.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:20 am
With due respect, I wouldn’t say they were irrelevant. This is an issue on which many people swear that there’s no reason not to agree with them. Being unable to come up with a reasonable counter makes it so much easier to turn the argument personal or political.
Besides, if I just said that a reasonable argument existed but did not provide it, I’d have been encouraged by those who didn’t believe me to provide it in the comments.
But, in the future, I’ll try to signal the point a little more clearly at the beginning.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“from calling me, my opinion, or this post (depending on how semantic you want to get) “foolish”, is there? (to say nothing of the fact that you didn’t support the assertion with any sort of logic, you just tossed it out there)”
Yes I did. Twice. In your initial post you said:
“You fall into one of three categories: you cannot afford health care, you will not afford health care, or you have health care.”
Which misses out on one of the biggest reasons for universal healthcare. People who can not get it, no matter how much money they’re willing to pay. People who are dropped, people who have preexisting conditions.
I’ve stated this TWICE, in two different comments, and you still act as if I simply called your post foolish without giving a reason. Your post is foolish for that reason. It’s like adding together all the expenses for taking a trip and forgetting gas for the car. That would be foolish; missing an expense that should be obvious to anyone. The same goes for your post regarding health care. To ignore one of the biggest problems facing those who want healthcare is either ignorant, in that you were not aware of the problem, or foolish, in that you’re just ignoring the problem.
And even though I’ve brought this point up twice, not only have you not responded, you’re acting as if I never brought it up.
“While (maybe) technically true, I think we both know that from a practical perspective, it’s a load of crap.”
No it’s not. You either don’t understand the difference between a personal attack and an honest assessment of a foolish idea or you are simply too sensitive to discuss the idea. If honest, productive debate ends when someone calls your idea foolish, you need to barricade yourself in a bunker.
You started out comparing my comment to winers. They’re nothing alike. He’s calling a person heartless. I’m calling your post foolish. You can spin that anyway you want. They’re not the same. I realize you came out fighting wanting to show that I was giving an example of a personal attack and now you’re backed in a corner and not going to budge, but that’s your own doing, not mine.
“You keep focusing on the substantive issue of the debate because you really want to argue it.”
No, I don’t. Which is why my initial response was one paragraph. This isn’t my site. I’m not going to comment with my own ideas on health care. I simply pointed out why your post was foolish. Your idea are not based in the real world. It’s based on the assumption that most people could have health care if they desired, and the small percentage that can’t just need a little help to afford it. You couldn’t be more wrong.
I worked in a clinic as I said before, in the insurance department, so I call BS when I see it. That’s far more important than walking softly hoping that the word foolish doesn’t make you take your ball and go home. You simply don’t have the knowledge to understand the health care industry. Nothing wrong with that, you can still have your opinion. But be prepared to be called on by others that do know what they’re talking about.
This will be my last comment on this topic simply because we’re not getting anywhere and this isn’t the site’s purpose as I understand it. But seeing the way you’ve called my comment a personal attack when it wasn’t, and continue to ignore that I did give reasons behind my comment, well, maybe I’m being too hard on winer. In this entire post and the subsequent comments the only difference I can see between discussing this with winer and you is the non-deletion of my comments. I’ll give you that.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Markd: I’ll take this slow, maybe you can keep up.
Yes I did. Twice.
No, you didn’t. You tossed an opinion out there. One I don’t agree with. Having had quite a bit of experience with preexisting conditions and insurance by way of family members, I’ve never seen anyone unable to buy insurance. Rejected by several insurers? Sure. Had to pay a lot? Sure. Completely unable to find insurance? Never. You saying it’s true doesn’t make it so, despite your alleged experience.
Regardless, you failed to answer the question: what does calling a differing opinion from yours “foolish” gain you? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Maybe smarter? Why not just disagree, explain the reasons for your disagreement, and call it a day?
You either don’t understand the difference between a personal attack and an honest assessment of a foolish idea or you are simply too sensitive to discuss the idea.
I clearly do understand the idea, though your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. Observe:
The difference between calling an idea foolish and calling a person foolish is really one of semantics. It typically has the same effect on the listener. Neither you, nor the vast majority of the populace, are smart enough or persuasive enough to convince someone of something who doesn’t want to be convinced… and when you start a debate by calling a person (or their opinions or ideas) foolish you start at a disadvantage. It’s a concept some people learn as they mature and some, quite obviously, do not.
You started out comparing my comment to winers. They’re nothing alike.
They are different in their semantic meaning, but they’re very much alike in their effect (and, usually, in their intent). You can dismiss people who don’t make the distinction all you want, that’s your call, but if you’re trying to move the discussion forward, you fail by when you parse words like this. Also, though you’ve said it several times, it’s false that I’ve said that you attacked me personally. My point, though not clearly made at the start (I tend to overestimate people’s capacity for critical thought, I guess), is that alienating people is bad if you’re trying to get things accomplished.
You simply don’t have the knowledge to understand the health care industry. Nothing wrong with that, you can still have your opinion. But be prepared to be called on by others that do know what they’re talking about.
This is probably the most hilarious line of your comment. You have no idea what I do or do not have the knowledge to understand… but obviously, since we disagree, you must know more than I do. Heh.
I remember when I used to think like that… I think it was High School.
The bottom line, for all of your ranting, is this: social programs like universal health care are contentious issues. They will succeed more often when the discussion is respectful and both sides feel that their concerns are actually being heard and considered by the other side.
Calling a person or their opinions (or, hell, even the things they may be confused or factually wrong about) foolish/stupid/etc doesn’t advance your position. It puts people on the defensive, and you’re going to have a much harder time finding middle ground.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I won’t bother to debate the majority of your post since I said I was going to let it go, but just to be clear this:
“I remember when I used to think like that… I think it was High School.”
and this:
“I’ll take this slow, maybe you can keep up.”
are personal insults. So add hypocrite to your resume.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Wow EOW, I’m beginning to think you ARE Dave Winer.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
So, after harping about how you weren’t insulting me, but calling my post foolish, you can’t differentiate between personal attacks and
…but I’m the hypocrite? Interesting.
Or maybe now you see my point: parsing the literal meaning of words doesn’t really change how people feel about hearing them.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Again, if you don’t get the difference between this:
“I’ll take this slow, maybe you can keep up.”
And calling your post foolish I don’t know what to tell you. And you criticized my reading comprehension (I had even skipped over that insult)?
Are you really telling me you can’t see the difference? You can’t be that dense, so I’ll assume you’re just playing games now.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I apologize if you took my questioning of your reading comprehension personally, it was just a simple assessment of a skill with which many people have problems… it’s no different than knowledge of the health care industry, really. Some people are better readers than others, it doesn’t make you a bad person.
And in that quote I was simply letting you know what was coming. I didn’t say you couldn’t keep up… more people can follow things that are slow. I was just being considerate, no?
I see you’re not such a big fan of turn-about. Fancy, that.
“I’ll assume you’re just playing games now.”
It’s the same game as “Oh, I didn’t call you foolish… I just said your opinion was foolish.”
It’s a game that I pointed out, at the beginning, doesn’t yield fruit… and what do you know… here we are squabbling about the meanings of words and phrases instead of engaging in intelligent, meaningful debate. Can’t say I’m surprised.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
“here we are squabbling about the meanings of words and phrases instead of engaging in intelligent, meaningful debate. Can’t say I’m surprised.”
We’re squabbling about words because you read my original comment and took the word foolish out to prove a point. That’s the only thing that happened. You were more interested in proving your point than anything else. So we’ve gone from there. The word foolish didn’t poison anything. Your need to be right did. So we’ve gone round and round.
And now you point to the conclusion and thrust your chest out saying “look, I was right from the beginning”, when that was the only conclusion you would allow.
You comments, frankly have been bizarre, and yes, winer like. From the comments I’m obviously not the only one that holds that opinion. So we’ll agree to disagree and I’ll wait for for your next spot on observation on winer while realizing that in many ways, you’re very similar to the big guy.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:32 am
markd: where EOW is pointing out that calling someone else’s perspective “foolish” is unproductive, he is absolutely right. Besides that, it is obvious that he doesn’t like it, or else he wouldn’t argue against it. Is it going to hurt you to “take it back” because the other doesn’t like it? Can you reiterate arguments or put forward other arguments without arguing whether there is any value to saying this or that is “foolish”? Absolutely, you can. Why don’t you? Does it actually have anything to do with the inner working of reasons for or against universal health care? No.
EOW: You in turn have said equally (or more) unproductive things. But first, I completely agree with your observation that Dave’s comment would make it impossible for anyone to disagree with him unless they want it directly implied that they have no heart (or compassion). That is straight up verbal abuse, and despicable. I tend to think that markd’s comments, where he says something is foolish, can very easily come across the same way where (in my reading - and maybe I missed it or forgot it) no one has come out and agreed that, in fact, Dave’s comment was insulting and abusive. Here no one displays the good sense and compassion to agree with that (other than to hurl insults at Dave), and no someone else comes along calling your observations “foolish”. Absurd (in my opinion) semantics aside of whether that indicates you as a fool or your comments under discussion as foolish, it’s adding a possibly-hurtful distraction to ignored hurt (and it hurts any human being to be told they have no heart). And that’s really the question, which now I ask markd: okay, if you’re calling his comment foolish, you’re allowing that other things he says may not be foolish. However, whether other things he says are wise or foolish, you offer no opinion. It is very easy to guess in such an unsettled contentious environment as Dave has created, and where you have not offered either any respectful agreement with EOW, nor have you opined that anything else he says is wise, that you may think other things he has to say might also be foolish. And if you offer no evidence that you think anything else he says might be wise, it’s also an easy guess that, if everything else he says might be foolish, he might be, on the whole, himself, foolish. After all, you don’t take the time to build him up at all as a person by pointing out his wisdom. Is that respect? No. Is it on the whole insulting? Absolutely, and I think you know that, however much your squabbling with semantics distracts from it.
But EOW, turning around and casting his rhetoric and reading comprehension as juvenile and slow lost you all the ground you built.
Seriously, I came into this thread reading opposing points of view that began respectfully and had me thinking about the topic of universal health care. Then it erupted into a flame war in nothing flat. I still remember a thing or two that was pretty useful, but I have to work past all the contention and insults to remember it, which isn’t pleasant.