This is en example of why the MSM is so dangerous

[yt=Why we need more Barney Franks in Congress]nYlZiWK2Iy8[/yt]

Of course not. It works if you stay healthy, or have money, or get insurance.

When those situations can be easily helped by another system that also provides better help for all other situations, then yeah, that condemns the first system.

But you can't justify everything with those ends, and I'm still not accepting that the choice is between being made to subsidize other peoples' health care informally through our current system, or subsdizing it formally through a government program.

Pareto superiority is a concept brought to you by the devil in libertopia.

Okay, in this one instance, I will admit that Barney Frank righteously pwned that girl in the audience.

EVERYONE has to be no worse off. Explain how an Ebenezer Scrooge is no worse off.

Value is subjective, which is why only a voluntary system is acceptable. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away.

The deceit here, of course, is in pretending that there is any solution that leaves everythign to an individual's voluntary choice. But there isn't; there is NO option that "does nothing".

Says who? Based on what? There have been plenty of incomplete solutions suggested here. Your lack of belief doesn't automatically invalidate them. Even if we resort to a matter of degrees in combination with a multi-faceted approach, we should always shoot for the absolute minimal amount of imposition on free will possible, rather than giving in to the temptation of trivializing it to promote an "ends justify the means" agenda.

^^You're mind-reading instead of eye-reading again.

Did you or did you not just claim that there is no option that retains the element of consent?

The real "red herring" here is the supposed "Tamar thinks she is superior to Diacanu" garbage...wrong.

My issue was and still is that Diacanu is making pronouncements about something like he knows better than everyone else and deciding I have some sort of hate for people in dire straights when the point I was making is that there are plenty of options already in place for people to get healthcare assisstance if only they get off their ass and make an effort to get them. And I know this from experience.

As for the trolling...

You need to work on your material and try harder if you hope to "get" to me.

So, in other words, business as usual?

When 14thDoctor, Liet, and Packard agree on something, you can be assured it's 100% incorrect.

That lot is the perfect triumvirate for what is evil and wrong in the world.

By the standard introduced by O2C, which is that ONE person's partial, indirect and harmless involuntary inclusion breaks the deal. So keep that standard in mind when you defend "incomplete" solutions, because it was that ridiculous standard which he thought he needed to dismiss other solutions. If you think that some solutions can be good although they don't meet that standard -- then my post sums up your opinion.

I neither disagree with that standard nor accept that it renders the whole idea invalid.

When I say "incomplete," I mean that you can't provide for everyone, and I would choose gaps in support or coverage for some people over compulsory participation.

Explain how this is not a contradiction in terms.

I think we need to focus on Government reform and getting the debt under control before we even consider any Government run healthcare options.

How is piling on more programs we can't afford going to help the situation?

Tamar, meet Jenee.

Thats the truth. lets say we ran our lives like congress...

We would have a semi trailer to store our unpaid bills.

We would fly around the world.

Buy 200 foot yachts with helicopters onboard, french chefs and a 20 person crew.

I could go on and on, the bottom line is our Government is out of control.

Since the dems have the house senate and the white house they are having a squirting orgasm with the American peoples check book and the republicans are not any better.

The whole deal makes me sick, we pay those jack off lazy peices of shit better than minimum wage and they are not even worth that.

I want all the washington fat cats to impose cap and trade and live with the health care reform they impose for 3 years and see how they like it before they shove it on us.

I mean come on, its so good let them live with it for 3 years and prove how great it is. those lazy fucks cant fill me with bullshit.

Competent UHC programs are cheaper than your current healthcare system.

Given that a complete absence of involuntary inclusion is physically and logically impossible, a harmless one is one by which you're forced to accept something that doesn't hurt you in any (other) way. Since we already know that you're going to be forced to do something, choosing the option that forces you to pay a minimal amount of money for something that you want to have is harmless, and better than the one that forces you to pay a lot of money for something you don't want.

Setting aside the convenient disregard for consent there , what precedent set by the United States government leads you to believe it could competently run a UHC system?

This is most certainly not a given.

, because that doesn't change Tamar's claim that it's something the US can't afford,

None, which is why I think a co-op plan is at least as good as a public option. However, I also don't think it is competent to run the current system, or to protect a true free market system. I just hope that it won't fuck up a UHC system any worse than it does any others.

The beauty of a "true free market system" is that it doesn't require an arbitrary force to "run" it.

It doesn't really allow for dictating outcomes either, but we shouldn't be attempting that anyway.

lets see some proof, thats what the poeple want.

Given that all governments include some arbitrary facets in order to fulfil government's most basic functions, and that you will never have complete consensus about how best to set those arbitrary facets, a minimum of involuntary inclusion is a given as long as you have any government whatsoever, and yes, that includes the way Dad runs his family of three in the mountains of solitude. While a hermit might theoretically evade all kinds of society with other humans altogether, he did not do so while an infant, unless he died as an infant hermit.

That's the general argument. Lest you think that it's purely theoretical, you might try to explain how either allowing or disallowing stockholdings, introducing or avoiding a common currency, including or excluding police and fire departments from government functions, or deciding what is owned and what isn't (air?), to name just a few, can retain complete individual freedom.

I disagree, but we needn't go there. You and I agree that a free market at least requires the government to leave it alone in many aspects (you would probably say: all), and the US government has repeatedly proven itself unable or unwilling to do so.

Source
Related Source, shorthand

Not all. Just anything not covered by protection of individual rights against force and fraud. The entire reason people form governed societies. And yes, it does follow from this that there is a "buy in" for participation that cannot be avoided, but this is absolutely not an unconditional foot in the door for all manner of compulsory programs.