Faith and politics

[JohnnyLingo]

Are you really asking if it can be proven true or untrue? Because I think you know that the answer is that it cannot. However, I think the likelihood that a government-run nationwide healthcare program would meet the goals of efficiency, morality, and economy is so incredibly low that it would be a tremendous waste of resources if it were to be attempted (if those are in fact the goals).

Right, so as it cannot be proven either way, those who are arguing about this issue are going on faith, right? That's my entire argument in this thread.

[woot]

Right, so as it cannot be proven either way, those who are arguing about this issue are going on faith, right? That's my entire argument in this thread.

This argument is about as dumb as arguments get. Nothing can be proven either way. Science has never proven anything. Proof is the currency of math, not science. It can't be proven that leprechauns don't exist, so therefore you take it on faith that they don't? No. You, like every other sane person, evaluate evidence and draw a conclusion. Since there isn't any evidence for their existence, you assume they don't exist; you're probably right. Where is faith involved here? I submit that if your definition of faith is such that it is required to believe anything in the absence proof, that your concept of faith is meaningless.

[JohnnyLingo]

This argument is about as dumb as arguments get. Nothing can be proven either way. Science has never proven anything. Proof is the currency of math, not science. It can't be proven that leprechauns don't exist, so therefore you take it on faith that they don't? No. You, like every other sane person, evaluate evidence and draw a conclusion. Since there isn't any evidence for their existence, you assume they don't exist; you're probably right. Where is faith involved here? I submit that if your definition of faith is such that it is required to believe anything in the absence proof, that your concept of faith is meaningless.

Huh, the extreme word parsing came from an area I did not expect.

Good ol' woot, always trying to get my goat.

Things That Can Be Proved:

1. There is water in that cup.

2. I can buy a candy bar with two quarters and three pennies.

3. My shirt is predominantly green.

You're really saying none of the above statements can be proved either way?

[il Padrino Ute]

Huh, the extreme word parsing came from an area I did not expect.

Good ol' woot, always trying to get my goat.

Things That Can Be Proved:

1. There is water in that cup.

2. I can buy a candy bar with two quarters and three pennies.

3. My shirt is predominantly green.

You're really saying none of the above statements can be proved either way?

I'd like to know where you can get a candy bar for 53¢.

[JohnnyLingo]

I'd like to know where you can get a candy bar for 53¢.

Maverick. Pretty consistently. Also dollar stores.

[il Padrino Ute]

Maverick. Pretty consistently. Also dollar stores.

I didn't know that. I know where I'm going next time I want a Big Hunk.

[woot]

Huh, the extreme word parsing came from an area I did not expect.

Good ol' woot, always trying to get my goat.

Things That Can Be Proved:

1. There is water in that cup.

2. I can buy a candy bar with two quarters and three pennies.

3. My shirt is predominantly green.

You're really saying none of the above statements can be proved either way?

No, they can't. I don't expect you to understand, but it's true. Each of those propositions could potentially be supported by evidence so overwhelming that it would be irrational to withhold conditional assent to their truthfulness, but that is all.

By the way, this isn't "extreme word parsing," since it gets at the very heart of your argument and exposes how meaningless it is.

[All-American]

Can this statement be proven true or untrue?

The federal government would efficiently, morally and economically administer a nationwide healthcare program that offered taxpayer-funded health services to all if given the chance.

I anticipate there will be extreme word parsing here. I ask that if you can resist, don't go that route; instead, focus on the spirit, not the letter, of the question.

I think that the statement cannot be proven true or untrue, and I think the potential for extreme word parsing is at the heart of my response to the question.

I imagine most people would agree that we want to provide the best possible health care to as many people and as cheaply as possible. But a given approach is going to satisfy each of those requirements to a different extent than a different one would. Because individuals are more or less concerned with some of those three variables than others, they will advocate different approaches.

A federal government sponsored health care plan would likely do the best job at providing health care to the greatest percentage of the population. There are serious reasons to doubt that it would come without compromise to quality and/or cost.

[All-American]

This argument is about as dumb as arguments get. Nothing can be proven either way. Science has never proven anything. Proof is the currency of math, not science. It can't be proven that leprechauns don't exist, so therefore you take it on faith that they don't? No. You, like every other sane person, evaluate evidence and draw a conclusion. Since there isn't any evidence for their existence, you assume they don't exist; you're probably right. Where is faith involved here? I submit that if your definition of faith is such that it is required to believe anything in the absence proof, that your concept of faith is meaningless.

I've seen a leprechaun. He told me to burn things.

[JohnnyLingo]

I think that the statement cannot be proven true or untrue, and I think the potential for extreme word parsing is at the heart of my response to the question.

I imagine most people would agree that we want to provide the best possible health care to as many people and as cheaply as possible. But a given approach is going to satisfy each of those requirements to a different extent than a different one would. Because individuals are more or less concerned with some of those three variables than others, they will advocate different approaches.

A federal government sponsored health care plan would likely do the best job at providing health care to the greatest percentage of the population. There are serious reasons to doubt that it would come without compromise to quality and/or cost.

1. Thanks for explaining your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I respect that.

2. I understand what you are saying. Let's imagine there's a balance scale, with "costs are too great" on the left and "costs are too little" on the right. This simplifies what I am asking, right? (I realize I'm still using vague phrasing that is not well-defined, but bear with me.)

In that case, can anyone prove that the scale will tip one way or the other in the future?

[falafel]

1. Thanks for explaining your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I respect that.

Hey, you stupid piece of garbage, I didn't use ad hominem attacks!

[All-American]

1. Thanks for explaining your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I respect that.

2. I understand what you are saying. Let's imagine there's a balance scale, with "costs are too great" on the left and "costs are too little" on the right. This simplifies what I am asking, right? (I realize I'm still using vague phrasing that is not well-defined, but bear with me.)

In that case, can anyone prove that the scale will tip one way or the other in the future?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. If I have the wrong impression, feel free to correct me.

I don't think you can prove that the costs will or won't be worth it. For one, it is impossible to accurately determine costs; after all, rising costs are very much an impetus for the current health care reform plan, and a number of awfully smart people genuinely believe it will save the country money in the long run.

But there's also the question of whether or not the "costs", whatever they would be, would be "worth it." That's a value judgment. Some would eagerly pay exorbitant amounts in taxes if it meant that everybody could get health care simply because they believe it is a moral prerogative. Others would not.

So here I am, parsing again, but that's the problem. "Costs" is an unknown variable, and "worth it" is an undefined variable. Consequentially, you're not likely to get a yes or no answer out of this question. You could get some interesting discussion rolling, though, if you defined one variable and asked respondents to define the other.

[JohnnyLingo]

You could get some interesting discussion rolling, though, if you defined one variable and asked respondents to define the other.

"Cost too high" = as a result of exorbitant spending on healthcare, the country experiences hyperinflation to the point that we are now Germany, circa 1939.

[All-American]

"Cost too high" = as a result of exorbitant spending on healthcare, the country experiences hyperinflation to the point that we are now Germany, circa 1939.

Yeah, I imagine that most would want to avoid that scenario.

You still can't necessarily prove that trying to provide universal health care would ultimately tip the scales that far. In fact, with several nations already providing universal health care, you can make a pretty good argument that it wouldn't. You might, however, see some cost cutting measures that would reduce the quality and/or availability of health care if the situation were to get as dire as that.

[JohnnyLingo]

You still can't necessarily prove that trying to provide universal health care would ultimately tip the scales that far.

Exactly my point.

In fact, with several nations already providing universal health care, you can make a pretty good argument that it wouldn't.

You can make a pretty good argument, but you cannot prove it won't happen.

You might, however, see some cost cutting measures that would reduce the quality and/or availability of health care if the situation were to get as dire as that.

Okay, so would that scenario qualify as "cost too high"?