US health care question

[Sheilbh]

Maintain a consistent, principled argument.  Avoid trying to score debating points and making arguments of expediency.

The last two I agree with - I think they should be standard for all discourse.  But I'm unsure about this one because it sounds to me like they're not allowed to respond to the situation on the ground.

Yeah the Democrats, for the most part, did not do these things.  They changed their position fluidly and it seemed to me it was a strategy to win back Congress than a strategy to actually leave Iraq which I did not think they actually wanted to do.  Events have seemed to me to show my cynicism was correct.

It was especially sad seeing alot of the Dems who voted for the war (and I think supported the war all along and continue to do so) use this strategy.

See I've got a lot of sympathy with them because I had opinions that were quite similar to them.  In 2003 I supported the war.  I started to get concerned in late 2004/2005 and started to support a withdrawal in 2006.  So did many Democrats and lots of other people, including most Americans according to the polls.

[Valmy]

I hate to say it...but I am warming to the idea of socialized medicine; even though I already exist in such a system, and generally despise it.

We should either cover everyone, or abandon health insurance as an entirety, and go back to the good old days where people who could afford it got a good doctor, and everyone else just died naturally.

Hell, if doctors had to market their services more, instead of just screwing Medicare or giant insurance conglomerates/HMOs, we'd probably be better off.  The downside to that, of course, is "emergency" care (heart attacks and the like), where you really don't have the luxury of shopping around.

But who really knows what a good solution would be.  The entire situation just sucks in general.

This is basically where I am coming to.

I cannot imagine the care I get could be anymore indifferently provided.  It might as well be government health care.

[DGuller]

Democratic politicians definitely didn't come out smelling like roses from the Iraq War.  It was their luck that they are matched up against the party that manufactured the war in the first place.  Some of them were genuinely for the war, some of them were probably against, but voted for because they didn't want to go against the public that was whipped into hysteria.  Now they're all going "we were for the good war, not the bad war that Bush turned it into", which is disingenous to say the least.

[Eddie Teach]

See I've got a lot of sympathy with them because I had opinions that were quite similar to them.  In 2003 I supported the war.  I started to get concerned in late 2004/2005 and started to support a withdrawal in 2006.  So did many Democrats and lots of other people, including most Americans according to the polls.

Yeah, at first I was willing to look past the no wmds for all those other arguments the neo-cons were pushing for the war, but the civil war, sharia constitution and NK getting a free pass kinda soured it for me.

[Admiral Yi]

The last two I agree with - I think they should be standard for all discourse.  But I'm unsure about this one because it sounds to me like they're not allowed to respond to the situation on the ground.

The problem with responding to a changing situation on the ground is you're left looking like an idiot when the situation changes back.

[Berkut]

Incidentally just thinking on what you're saying there '"Get Bush" was considered to be the over-riding goal, and if that meant that people supported the US losing a war, then so be it.'.  Do you think it's possible to be sort of honourably, or patriotically anti-war?  What I mean is if you're honest and truthful about things (so no distortion) but genuinely believe that the war is wrong or that withdrawal is right how can you express that without being perceived as a political hack or wanting  the US to lose a war?

Of course, just like you can be honestly against the Dem plan for healthcare reform without resorting to the "death panel" crap.

How can you express it? I am not sure what you mean - lots of people did just that. Sadly, most people have a hard time differentiating their opposition from those who simply hate it because Bush was for it. It isn't hard to differentiate yourself from them, but it does require you to be willing to call them on it when their arguments are clearly crap. But most people are unwilling to do that - they see even the nutbars as allies, so instead they defend and make excuses for them.

[Sheilbh]

The problem with responding to a changing situation on the ground is you're left looking like an idiot when the situation changes back.

If to maintain a principled constant position regardless of reality is the bar for this sort of thing, aren't the more extreme on either side the most likely to pass? 

To be honest I think you'd rather theologians than politicians.  People who set out their first principles and then stick by them through to their logical conclusion without stopping to check if those principles could be flawed.  It makes for better debate and argument, but I don't know if it's what we should want of our politics.

Of course, just like you can be honestly against the Dem plan for healthcare reform without resorting to the "death panel" crap.

The difference is that you can honestly be against healthcare reform and be a patriot.  Can you honestly want your country to lose a war - in your phrase - and be a patriot?  Is there room for Edmund Burke?

[Admiral Yi]

If to maintain a principled constant position regardless of reality is the bar for this sort of thing, aren't the more extreme on either side the most likely to pass? 

To be honest I think you'd rather theologians than politicians.  People who set out their first principles and then stick by them through to their logical conclusion without stopping to check if those principles could be flawed.  It makes for better debate and argument, but I don't know if it's what we should want of our politics.

Not necessarily.  One could have argued against the war from a cost/benefit POV (very centrist).  The problem with the peaceniks was they started from a moral principle (never attack anyone) and then jerry-rigged utilitarian arguments in an attempt to win the center.  Then their indifference to improvements in outcome measures showed they had just been talking hooey.

[Berkut]

Of course, just like you can be honestly against the Dem plan for healthcare reform without resorting to the "death panel" crap.

The difference is that you can honestly be against healthcare reform and be a patriot.  Can you honestly want your country to lose a war - in your phrase - and be a patriot?  Is there room for Edmund Burke?

Yes, but it is certainly a difficult row to hoe.

I hope you are not comparing the people who were hoping that the US lost to a bunch of radical Islamic fanatics who think that killing women is a great response to them being raped (as an example) with Burke's position that America was populated by Brits whom the king had no right to make war on. I don't see the two situations as very analogous, nor do I think that most people who took their opposition to the war in Iraq to such extreme lengths that they were cheering every setback based that opposition on any kind of principles beyond "Get Bush at any and all costs".

Most people who opposed the war on principle, generally as a bad idea that was not likely to achieve anything positive, or that the positives that might be achieved would be worth the cost, were likely to hope that in fact they were proven to be wrong, rather than proven to be right. Or at least that is what such a position ought to have led to.

[Sheilbh]

I hope you are not comparing the people who were hoping that the US lost to a bunch of radical Islamic fanatics who think that killing women is a great response to them being raped (as an example) with Burke's position that America was populated by Brits whom the king had no right to make war on. I don't see the two situations as very analogous, nor do I think that most people who took their opposition to the war in Iraq to such extreme lengths that they were cheering every setback based that opposition on any kind of principles beyond "Get Bush at any and all costs".

So does the acceptability of wanting an end to a war, or for your country lose a war, depend on what sort of opponents you have?

Who do you mean by the cheering every setback?  I can't think of anyone.  In this country at least giving such an impression would freeze someone out of mainstream political discourse.

The only guy I can think of is George Galloway. 

Most people who opposed the war on principle, generally as a bad idea that was not likely to achieve anything positive, or that the positives that might be achieved would be worth the cost, were likely to hope that in fact they were proven to be wrong, rather than proven to be right. Or at least that is what such a position ought to have led to.

But didn't the moveonistas, the Kucinich's and so on - the left you dislike so much - oppose the war on principle?  Are they really more admirable than someone who initially supported it but believed it to be unwinnable two years later?

Not necessarily.  One could have argued against the war from a cost/benefit POV (very centrist).

When is it acceptable to change your opinion on a subject like this?

[Admiral Yi]

When is it acceptable to change your opinion on a subject like this?

When you have a good reason for doing so.

[MadImmortalMan]

But didn't the moveonistas, the Kucinich's and so on - the left you dislike so much - oppose the war on principle?  Are they really more admirable than someone who initially supported it but believed it to be unwinnable two years later?

I think the perception is that those guys also hoped the US would lose the war so they'd be proven right, and that's where it breaks down.

[Sheilbh]

I think the perception is that those guys also hoped the US would lose the war so they'd be proven right, and that's where it breaks down.

Okay.  I suppose I'm seeing a difference between wanting withdrawal, which I think is perfectly acceptable and not wanting your guys to lose and wanting your guys to lose which is George Galloway style 'British and American troops are wolves' justifications of suicide bombing and killing your guys.

I associate loss more with people dying than with withdrawing at a moment of your choice.

Edit:  I think I basically think that opposing the war, throughout, and wanting withdrawal is fine and can be argued with.  I wouldn't use the 'want your country to lose' line until you get someone like Galloway who is arguing in favour and in support of the insurgents.

[Admiral Yi]

Moving back to health care, it would be interesting to see how much of the premium the US pays for health care goes toward treating the dying, wouldn't it?

[Sheilbh]

Moving back to health care, it would be interesting to see how much of the premium the US pays for health care goes toward treating the dying, wouldn't it?

Treating the dying costs less than hospice care, rather counter-intuitively.  At the minute it's $1.9 billion of Medicare's costs