Cost a Major Issue As Senate Starts Health Care

Video Title :	Cost a Major Issue As Senate Starts Health Care
Description :	Senate Democrats on Wednesday took the first major step toward a sweeping overhaul of the health care system in over a decade, pushing legislation despite strenuous GOP opposition and uncertainty about its provisions and costs. (June 17)
Views :	27587
Rating :	3.1978023
Keywords, Tags :	health, overhaul, cost, major, senate, starts, care
Video Length :	1 : 44

The Pledge of Allegiance I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Overhauling the nation's health care system is a bad idea... SAY NO!

And that's exactly why my world view is far more pluralistic and naunced than the dogmatic ideologies on both sides.

Perhaps it's a challenge to form a more congruent world view then - one that is more consistent between the words and reality.

Those people form just one part of my worldview. Needless to say, I don't agree with a lot or sometimes most of what they say. But they do indeed make so crucial points. But I'm glad to see you, who speaks so often of fallacies, are throwing ad hominems left and right.

Stossel? You would've had slightly more credibility to stick with social Darwinism, but you threw in one of the most discredited people on the boob-tube. Friedman? Speaking of discredited, haven't you bothered to read a paper anytime within the last year? Friedman economics is DOA. Back to Keynesian time for reality. And, Rand - Christ, that woman just needed some Valium. How unfortunate your professors told you what to think. Mine explored critical thinking, got my money's worth.

First, I'm by no means a Social Darwinist. Social Darwinism is based more on the false Lamarckism evolutionary theory than Darwinian theory. Oh, and greed has existed before the Industrial Revolution. One lunatic equating it to anything doesn't make a difference. Personally, I make my own nuanced opinions rather than have college professors do it for me. I recommend you watch John Stossel, Milton Friedman, or Ayn Rand on greed.

Not an Ayn Rand fan, given the lineage going back to Herbert Spencer who was a total nut job. It's ironic how this is often cited as social Darwinism, but having nothing to do with Charles Darwin or natural selection. Social Darwinists tend to confuse cause and effect; a common fallacy in reasoning.

Psychopathology is indeed psychology, just as adaptation is explained by biological anthropologist. Erich Fromm described greed in terms of hording; a 20th c. phenomenon following the industrial revolution, and he equated it to incest. I think that's a fine description.

Furthermore, whether greed is innate is psychological, not in the field of anthropology. And speaking of anthropology, you seem to abhor the notion of the individual, so let me ask you, have you ever been to a collectivist country?

"It's peculiar deplorable to rationalize greed." Yet, I doubt you've ever declined a raise because you wanted the bigger house, better house, etc. Is that not rationalization? Moreover, what is wrong with individuals pursuing their separate interests. I recommend Ayn Rand. We do not see alike. Does that mean we have to give up our individual goals just to appease one another? This is a really juvenile "greed is bad" argument.

Interesting revisionism, but even fails creative writing standards with an obvious cause effect fallacy. It's peculiar deplorable to rationalize greed. It's pathological learned, not inherent. I'd recommend enrolling in a basic cultural/bio anthropology course for developing a more accurate view of human evolution. My comments cannot be narcissistic when they're factually based. Narcissism by definition is to make assumptions about the world to suit your view, not how it is. Congrats.

Have you ever considered why we cooperate? We cooperate because it serves our INDIVIDUAL needs. We are a mutualistic species. We recognize our greatest chance for survival is through cooperation. Hence, we, as individuals, decide whether to contribute or not. Some contribute more so than others for a greater benefit. This is called greed. Through cooperation, we survive as individuals. And no, cooperation does not conflict with greed.

Greed does not conflict with cooperation. This is the narcissistic fallacy you operate under. When you pay for a movie ticket, you and the seller have cooperated with each other. You have both also exercised greed- wanting something you do not need. Seller wants profit and you want entertainment. I know you're a hippie who's never experienced the world, never seen the true implications of collectivism, ridiculing individualism so far as it can be done.

Cooperation required a more collective approach where greed is based purely on individualist motivations - too often at the expense of altruism, empathy and, yes, cooperation. Greed isn't natural, and I stand by my earlier statement.

If you isolate a group of children on an island, elites with more power will develop. They want to improve their status among the cooperation. You flag cooperation as if it contradicts innate greed. It doesn't. Else you cannot account for the thousands of wars, misgivings, genocides, etc. within such "social structures". Wanting more for oneself is natural. You vainly hold onto a narcissistic view, hoping that if you elevate humanity, you somehow elevate yourself.

I disagree. Greed is not natural, but a learned pathological social behavior lacking empathy or any sense of altruism. Cooperation is required for social structures as an inherent part of our survival. Had our ancestors not cooperated with each other, they would've failed to function as a social group. Therefore, you cannot justify greed and trivialize it with excuses. That's all they are - excuses. For solutions, a better approach is using our brain. Single-payer is the solution.

The Obama plan hopes to offer a public option, it's called competition, the thing Republicans claim to support. It's what you have in a truly free market, you have choices, and if the people choose the public option the private Insurance companies will have to lower their prices to compete, or they go out of business. That's called a free market: what part of that do you not understand?

It is you who are the liar. I said nothing of Canada's cancer cure rate. I'm not in Sweden, I'm in the US. I've friends in a number of countries though, and none of them would want to be saddled with our crumbling healthcare system. If you're going to criticize others use of English, double-check your own. "Hypocrite" has an "e" at the end. As one, you should know that.

Influenced by whom?

I guess that I missed the lesson growing up that health care, food, clothing, and housing was a right. I always thought that you had to earn them with hard work. Now I know there are exceptions but for the most part if you are able to hold a job you can find a way to get health care. Personally my job doesn't provide me with benefits so I buy my own, which are totally affordable if I actually go to work.

Guess so. I still think that greed is an influenced idea.

Yes, it is natural. It can be observed in many primates, apes, monkeys, dolphins, and list goes on and on. Are you assuming that I'm some type of religious nut or homophobe?

Ugh well ok I will agree that greed is a natural option for humans, but you have to agree that homosexuality is natural!

Yes, you can. Wanting to protect our genitals from both unwelcome eyes damage is natural. So, too, is the need for self-actualization. Greed has a negative connotation. In reality, it just denotes "wanting more than what's necessary". You are just as greedy as anyone else. There is no one that isn't greedy. Even the Pope wants a Sainthood. In Milton Friedman's words, "where exactly are these immaculate angels who are going to organize society for us"? And the answer is simple: Nowhere.