MMO Fam About MMOFam Suggest MMORPG Networks
Flyff Flyff Flyff
Flyff Flyff Flyff
Flyff Home Flyff Wiki Flyff Guides Flyff Market Place Flyff Gallery Flyff Forums
Flyff Flyff Flyff
Register
Arcade
Gallery
Contact Us
Forum Support
Go Back   Flyff World > World Community > Debates

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
MStevens24
 
Default National Health Care (United states) - 07-22-2009, 07:12 PM
The debate is, what type of health care should the united states go for.

What are your ideas? How would you go about doing it?

My solution.

I would go for a national health care system, in which all people in the united states as some form of a basic health care plan.

Some basic facts before I start my argument.

-The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship.

-The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy

-The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality

- The U.S spends more in capita per person for health care then any in the whole world.

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_ca...ted_states.htm

Now to the argument.

Once again, My idea would be to cover each and every American citizen with health care. I would put into law that everyone must present a Id care, to show proof of American citizenship before getting admitted to the hospital. This does not include if a person has a life threatening case, in which case anyone would be admitted. This would be an effort to stop illegal immigrants from leeching off health care that they didnt pay or work for.

Cutting out most of the insurance companies, in the end, would SAVE us money. Over 1/3 of health care costs can be contributed to insurance administrative costs.If we cut these costs, the offset of the rise in our tax dollars, would be negligible.
Also, as everyone is already paying a huge amount just to have health care, going over to a tax based health care system would off set the cost.


The next part of the plan, would be to put on the American citizen there own financial burden to the health care system.Meaning, if you have a birth defect, or some other defect in which is not your fault, or your fault is negligible, then your taxs would be the same as everyone elses. Meaning everyone would have a set percentage that came from there income. But, a yearly physical, with blood work done yearly, would be a requirement for all American citizens.
During this examination, the doctor would rate your health on a scale. If it shown that your are being detrimental to your health, you would in turn would have to pay a higher percentage of tax to your health care, so that others wouldnt have to bear the burden of your choices.

Such as obesity, smoking, heavy drinking, ect... Anything that is clearly the patients fault, would be theres to bear. Of course, this would still be made affordable to get.

Next point, privatizing health care is a very bad idea. It is a bad idea because insurance companies, like any other company, need to make money. That driving force makes the company cut costs, and ultimately puts who gets what in the hands of the insurance company. Instead of the doctor saying someone needs to have a certain treatment, is is the insurance company, who could care less about that individual, there only goal is to save and make money. Which puts us in a ethical dilemma.

My final argument is one of morals. It is wrong that we don't help each other out. It is a right of a human being to have affordable health care. A person should never have to choose to either take a life saving pill or to pay there bills.
We have an obligation to help those who are in need, that is what the U.S has been built upon, and we cannot just blindly turn away from others.

Last edited by MStevens24; 07-22-2009 at 07:13 PM.
  #2  
Addle Larson
 
Default 07-22-2009, 07:33 PM
From what I read you consider self-detrimental behavior to be drug use and a lack of exercise. What I want to know is how you intend to advance these policies in relation to the mentally ill who are prone to drug use or those who do not achieve obesity but have poor diets anyway that causes them health problems. Essentially I want to know how deeply you explored the truths of the matter.
  #3  
MStevens24
 
Default 07-22-2009, 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
From what I read you consider self-detrimental behavior to be drug use and a lack of exercise. What I want to know is how you intend to advance these policies in relation to the mentally ill who are prone to drug use or those who do not achieve obesity but have poor diets anyway that causes them health problems. Essentially I want to know how deeply you explored the truths of the matter.
Like I stated before.

A comprehensive exam on everyone each year would be required.

Things that are not the fault of the patient would not work against them. This would be very liberal in nature as well.

Things that are the fault of the partient, so as if the patient smokes, refuses to exercise, or refusing to stop using drugs or not drink as much

Would in turn be put on that patient.

Not mentally ill patients, as that is not there fault, I very clearely stated that was the case.

As far as how much I have looked into the issue.

I am a nurse, and work at a hospital and a nursing home, so my experience and my knowledge on the subject is adequate enough to present an argument.

Last edited by MStevens24; 07-22-2009 at 08:12 PM.
  #4  
Addle Larson
 
Default 07-23-2009, 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MStevens24 View Post
Like I stated before.

A comprehensive exam on everyone each year would be required.

Things that are not the fault of the patient would not work against them. This would be very liberal in nature as well.

Things that are the fault of the partient, so as if the patient smokes, refuses to exercise, or refusing to stop using drugs or not drink as much

Would in turn be put on that patient.

Not mentally ill patients, as that is not there fault, I very clearely stated that was the case.

As far as how much I have looked into the issue.

I am a nurse, and work at a hospital and a nursing home, so my experience and my knowledge on the subject is adequate enough to present an argument.
So mentally ill people who use drugs are off the hook due to it not being their fault? I'm failing to understand your answer because it doesn't seem to even address my question. This also does not answer for bad diet and long-term injury, disability, or illness despite normalized standards of health for years.

Your system is just too simple and doesn't address a wide variety of problems including social alcoholism, long-term damage due to stressors that were unnecessary, behaviors that arise from hard-to-identify causes including mental illnesses that are more common like depression, etc. All in all your assessments would also fail to pick up many things because unless you did surprise assessments you wouldn't catch multiple instances of drug use, bad eating habits, bad hygiene, mental illness ( since people tend to hide it anyway ), etc.

The system itself will collapse on itself.
  #5  
MStevens24
 
Default 07-23-2009, 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
So mentally ill people who use drugs are off the hook due to it not being their fault? I'm failing to understand your answer because it doesn't seem to even address my question. This also does not answer for bad diet and long-term injury, disability, or illness despite normalized standards of health for years.
I answered your question very clearly, and its not a very hard concept to understand.

A mentally ill patient, is by nature off the hook because they are mentally ill.

They are not in control of there faculties.

Furthermore, if they are on drugs, and are mentally ill, they most likely will not have a job, therefore under my plan, they wouldn't have any taxes to pay anyway.

If they were on drugs and they were able to control themselves, sure, thats there fault and they should have to have more pay come out of there taxes if they do as such if they can afford it.

But a mentally ill person is not in control, hence why there are mentally ill.

You also fail to understand the nature of most mentally ill people.

Most, are either institutionalized, therefore there care is already free.

Or are homeless, therefore they dont have taxes to pay.

If you are talking about lesser mentally ill people, the determination would be on whether or not they had control over there faculties, or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Your system is just too simple and doesn't address a wide variety of problems including social alcoholism, long-term damage due to stressors that were unnecessary, behaviors that arise from hard-to-identify causes including mental illnesses that are more common like depression, etc. All in all your assessments would also fail to pick up many things because unless you did surprise assessments you wouldn't catch multiple instances of drug use, bad eating habits, bad hygiene, mental illness ( since people tend to hide it anyway ), etc.

The system itself will collapse on itself.
This is a funtemental misunderstanding of the health care problem

You are assuming that I am saying we need to be stringent on our rules.

Or that its a bad thing that people would, squeak by.

This system is in place in many European countries and in Canada.

So that point that it would collapse is a incorrect statement.

Also you fail to understand yearly physicals.

I wonder, do you know how they work?

Alcoholism just isnt something that goes away, if your an alcoholic, your most likely unhealthy.

And a simple system is the best kind of system

The point is to reduce paperwork, and make things easy for people to understand.

It a fairly simple health care plan. A simple version would be this.

1. Everyone gets health care.
2. If you want health care, you are required to have a yearly checkup
3. IF we find in this checkup you are doing unhealthy things that are within your control, the you will have to pay more then other healthy people.
4. These checkups would be liberal in nature, we wouldn't go out looking for something, we would do as through of an examination that we could with modern science, if we cant find something that if your own fault then it wouldnt be a problem.
5. We would also work with you, and give you a plan to get healthy. ( a lot of insurance companies already do this)

Thats it, a simple idea and rule.

As far as the points you say I didnt touch on, that would be covered on the check up part of my argument.

However, the fact you listed those further states you dont understand how health care or check ups worked.

If I listed every single thing that a person could have wrong with them I would make a list a mile long.

Examples of major problems I would touch on would be obese people that eat way too much food and refuse to exercise.

People who smoke, or people who do drugs.

Most of these things, take a simple blood test and a hair sample to do. And do not need surprise exams to achieve the goal.

Last edited by MStevens24; 07-23-2009 at 05:03 PM.
  #6  
Addle Larson
 
Default 07-23-2009, 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MStevens24 View Post
I answered your question very clearly, and its not a very hard concept to understand.

A mentally ill patient, is by nature off the hook because they are mentally ill.

They are not in control of there faculties.

Furthermore, if they are on drugs, and are mentally ill, they most likely will not have a job, therefore under my plan, they wouldn't have any taxes to pay anyway.

If they were on drugs and they were able to control themselves, sure, thats there fault and they should have to have more pay come out of there taxes if they do as such if they can afford it.

But a mentally ill person is not in control, hence why there are mentally ill.

You also fail to understand the nature of most mentally ill people.

Most, are either institutionalized, therefore there care is already free.

Or are homeless, therefore they dont have taxes to pay.

If you are talking about lesser mentally ill people, the determination would be on whether or not they had control over there faculties, or not.
Do not work from extremes, it is not only a bad habit but it is of little merit considering 1/4 adults have a mental disorder at any given time. I'm positive most persons who have mental disorders, even the more debilitating sort, actually function to some degree in society. Also, speaking about being in control of mental faculties, there's very few mentally ill patients who are aware they are mentally ill naturally, I.E. they may easily appear normal, this includes mood disorders and can range to disorders dealing with paranoia as well and phobias.

While what you're saying is true, it's not an accurate painting of the situation at hand, considering also that mentally ill persons have increased in the prison system a few times over as well but many do function.

Quote:
This is a funtemental misunderstanding of the health care problem

You are assuming that I am saying we need to be stringent on our rules.

Or that its a bad thing that people would, squeak by.

This system is in place in many European countries and in Canada.

So that point that it would collapse is a incorrect statement.
The system is not without it's problems. You also need to consider population size. France, where this is working best, has 61 million people, the US has 300+, or 5x the number of people in France ( Canada has half of that and still has problems ); the system works better in smaller populations since it's just quicker to serve anyone due to sheer volume.

Quote:
Also you fail to understand yearly physicals.

I wonder, do you know how they work?
Making it mandatory is where you're going to run-aground.
Quote:
Alcoholism just isnt something that goes away, if your an alcoholic, your most likely unhealthy.
If you're an alcoholic, especially a social alcoholic, it may be damn near impossible to even detect.
Quote:
And a simple system is the best kind of system

The point is to reduce paperwork, and make things easy for people to understand.

It a fairly simple health care plan. A simple version would be this:

1. Everyone gets health care.
2. If you want health care, you are required to have a yearly checkup
3. IF we find in this checkup you are doing unhealthy things that are within your control, the you will have to pay more then other healthy people.
4. These checkups would be liberal in nature, we wouldn't go out looking for something, we would do as through of an examination that we could with modern science, if we cant find something that if your own fault then it wouldnt be a problem.
5. We would also work with you, and give you a plan to get healthy. ( a lot of insurance companies already do this)
1. Peachy.
2. Incredibly unstable and hard to direct, easy to hide substance problems or just cheat the system because you can beat drug testing and general health testing as well.
3. If you find this that will turn people off to the program altogether, and instead of being more healthy to pay less they will probably engage in more dangerous behaviors due to the stress of having to quit their dangerous behaviors. You might understand if you know about self-perpetuating behaviors.
4. Peachy.
5. Obviously.
Quote:
Thats it, a simple idea and rule.
Simple is good on paper, but in a complex system sometimes simple ideas don't work. Real life is hardly that simple considering the difficulty of discovering drug abuse, the difficulty of double-illness and illnesses that perpetuate one another ( drug use leads to depression but depression may spark drug use, finding the root cause treats both problems but treating one without the other does not fix either ), then you have problems dealing with just the complexity of medicine alone as well as funding and the economics of the situation.

Let's be honest with ourselves: "The way to get rich is to pay your bills and save your money." < -- If it were that simple why isn't everyone rolling in money yet?
Quote:
As far as the points you say I didnt touch on, that would be covered on the check up part of my argument.

However, the fact you listed those further states you dont understand how health care or check ups worked.
I beg to differ.
Quote:
If I listed every single thing that a person could have wrong with them I would make a list a mile long.
That doesn't mean you can't address specific problems brought up; I didn't say to list them all off, I asked you about two specific problems, which you are now using "the volume of the world's problems!" to evade. I'd have rathered you just say "I don't know" or "I can't answer" or just not make an excuse.
Quote:
Examples of major problems I would touch on would be obese people that eat way too much food and refuse to exercise.

People who smoke, or people who do drugs.

Most of these things, take a simple blood test and a hair sample to do. And do not need surprise exams to achieve the goal.
The problem there is running extremes. It's just bad for you. Anyone in medicine should know that there are just some nasty grey areas eveywhere, from the guy who isn't overweight but is obese to the very overweight ( non-muscular ) person who is not obese and is perfectly healthy and from your obvious addicts to the closet cocaine addicts that are crawling all over the place. Truth be told you might even work with addicts and just never be able to tell, they pass all their tests because their smart, and without surprise drug testing ( it's why they came up with it ) you'll never catch them.
  #7  
MStevens24
 
Default 07-23-2009, 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Do not work from extremes, it is not only a bad habit but it is of little merit considering 1/4 adults have a mental disorder at any given time. I'm positive most persons who have mental disorders, even the more debilitating sort, actually function to some degree in society. Also, speaking about being in control of mental faculties, there's very few mentally ill patients who are aware they are mentally ill naturally, I.E. they may easily appear normal, this includes mood disorders and can range to disorders dealing with paranoia as well and phobias.
You once again fundamentally misunderstand the problem.

Yes 1 in 4 adults do have a form of mental illness.

But you forget to mention that the mental illness is treatable.

You also forget to mention that the main burden is with the serious mental illness, not the more common ones.

The percentage of people with a serious mental illness is 6-7%.

And of those people, few if none of which work, so no taxes are paid.

Also if they had health care, they would be able to come in for treatment, hence they wouldn't have to hide, or not get treated for there problems.

Hence less mental patients on drugs, less people using drugs in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
While what you're saying is true, it's not an accurate painting of the situation at hand, considering also that mentally ill persons have increased in the prison system a few times over as well but many do function.
Mentally ill patients in prison has no bearing on my plan whatsoever.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
The system is not without it's problems. You also need to consider population size. France, where this is working best, has 61 million people, the US has 300+, or 5x the number of people in France ( Canada has half of that and still has problems ); the system works better in smaller populations since it's just quicker to serve anyone due to sheer volume.
never stated the system had no problems, every system has problems.

And you have no facts that b/c it is small it works better.

the difference between 60 million, and 300 million, isnt all that much when you look at macro economics.

Also, I already proved that the United states could pay for the health care reasonably.

Furthermore, you state is quicker to serve people, that is b.c they can pay for more nurses to be in hospitals. They have no nursing shortages.

Its not b/c the population is "smaller"

Therefore your point is moot.

As far as your Canada example, that source is wrong as well.

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_ca...ted_states.htm
Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#scalability
Universal healthcare is okay for a small country or organization like Switzerland, Canada, or the Veterans Administration, but it wouldn’t work when scaled up to meet the needs of a large country like the US?

Medicare is a national program that works reasonably well. There isno reason whatsoever that would make it hard to scale up. Indeed, Medicare was initiated (and administered for tens of millions of enrollees) before computers became available - scaling it up 7 or 8 fold should not prove difficult.

In Canada, health care is administered at the provincial level. The Ontario Health Insurance Program, which includes the city of Toronto as well as rural areas, is a good example. Since much of the program we envision would be regionalized, with regions similar in size to Ontario, that program seems a sound indication that scale should not be problematic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Making it mandatory is where you're going to run-aground.
If you're an alcoholic, especially a social alcoholic, it may be damn near impossible to even detect.
Once again the alcoholic person bears nothing on my system.

The check up would see if the person is healthy or not.

If the person is an alcoholic, they will be unhealthy. Its a simple idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
1. Peachy.
either rebuttal or dont respond with one word responses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
2. Incredibly unstable and hard to direct, easy to hide substance problems or just cheat the system because you can beat drug testing and general health testing as well.
No its not hard to detect.

A simple hair test and other medical tests that happen in a routine checkup are easy to find.

I know this b/c I work in the medical field, it happens all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
3. If you find this that will turn people off to the program altogether, and instead of being more healthy to pay less they will probably engage in more dangerous behaviors due to the stress of having to quit their dangerous behaviors. You might understand if you know about self-perpetuating behaviors.
Not really, You give people a goal, give them help to hit that goal, and most will succeed.

It is unfair that unhealthy people should weigh down unhealthy people. When those unhealthy people made bad decisions about there health.

Simple scenario, eat healthy, dont smoke, and dont do drugs. And if you do, prepare to pay for it and accept the consequences of your actions.

And once again, this practice is already showing up in insurance companies, only a matter of time before its across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post

4. Peachy.
5. Obviously.
See #`1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post

Simple is good on paper, but in a complex system sometimes simple ideas don't work. Real life is hardly that simple considering the difficulty of discovering drug abuse, the difficulty of double-illness and illnesses that perpetuate one another ( drug use leads to depression but depression may spark drug use, finding the root cause treats both problems but treating one without the other does not fix either ), then you have problems dealing with just the complexity of medicine alone as well as funding and the economics of the situation.
Yet I already proved that it has worked in other countries, and have cited several sources in which state that they would work.

And once again, when we get into complex issues, such as mental disorders that are treatable, that is something that would be worked on with the patient.

Ill say it again, it would be a very liberal system.

We are the only industrialized country in the world that doesnt have some form of national health care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Let's be honest with ourselves: "The way to get rich is to pay your bills and save your money." < -- If it were that simple why isn't everyone rolling in money yet?
I beg to differ.
That doesn't mean you can't address specific problems brought up; I didn't say to list them all off, I asked you about two specific problems, which you are now using "the volume of the world's problems!" to evade. I'd have rathered you just say "I don't know" or "I can't answer" or just not make an excuse.
I did make very clear answers, just pointing out the fallacy of stating that I didnt account for specific occurrences in my original argument.

You states I did list those reasons off in my original post, which is a fallacy b/c the list would be a mile long, that was my point.

Your mental illness point has not left me at a loss of words nor is it even made me come close to saying "i dont know" .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
The problem there is running extremes. It's just bad for you. Anyone in medicine should know that there are just some nasty grey areas eveywhere, from the guy who isn't overweight but is obese to the very overweight ( non-muscular ) person who is not obese and is perfectly healthy and from your obvious addicts to the closet cocaine addicts that are crawling all over the place. Truth be told you might even work with addicts and just never be able to tell, they pass all their tests because their smart, and without surprise drug testing ( it's why they came up with it ) you'll never catch them.
The problem is that you are running the extremes.

Your whole point is on mental illness. Which is an extreme way of trying to go about disproving the argument.

the major things that drive up health care that are preventable by American citizens are drugs, alcohol, obesity and smoking.

The 2 big ones being smoking and obesity.

Your focus on mental disorders is both wrong in the sense that it has a very small burden on health care, and wrong on the fact that it is treatable. It also is very much diagnosable, as previously states in your own source, and therefore we would know.

And mental disorders dont make someone completely unable to use there faculties, and completely unable to make rational choices.

A very, very small percentage are untreatable, and present a very low burden to the health care system.

I encourage you to read some articles on national health care, and to look into how check ups really work.

Last edited by MStevens24; 07-23-2009 at 07:50 PM.
  #8  
Addle Larson
 
Default 07-23-2009, 08:20 PM
You aren't the smartest so I'll keep it short.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MStevens24 View Post
You once again fundamentally misunderstand the problem.

Yes 1 in 4 adults do have a form of mental illness.

But you forget to mention that the mental illness is treatable.
We miss it; your simplistic screening process fails on all fronts. Next Point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
And you have no facts that b/c it is small it works better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Source
Universal healthcare is okay for a small country or organization like Switzerland, Canada, or the Veterans Administration, but it wouldn’t work when scaled up to meet the needs of a large country like the US

Medicare is a national program that works reasonably well. There isno reason whatsoever that would make it hard to scale up. Indeed, Medicare was initiated (and administered for tens of millions of enrollees) before computers became available - scaling it up 7 or 8 fold should not prove difficult.

In Canada, health care is administered at the provincial level. The Ontario Health Insurance Program, which includes the city of Toronto as well as rural areas, is a good example. Since much of the program we envision would be regionalized, with regions similar in size to Ontario, that program seems a sound indication that scale should not be problematic.
Source

Next Point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by I lol'd
the difference between 60 million, and 300 million, isnt all that much when you look at macro economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Addressing the Point
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_ca...ted_states.htm
Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada


a sound indication that scale should not be problematic.
No response to no point.

Next:

Quote:
Once again the alcoholic person bears nothing on my system.

The check up would see if the person is healthy or not.

If the person is an alcoholic, they will be unhealthy. Its a simple idea.
You know nothing of addiction. Choose a different field, dear fucking God...

Next:
Quote:
No its not hard to detect.
Source or you're just BSing.

Next:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimism
Not really, You give people a goal, give them help to hit that goal, and most will succeed.

It is unfair that unhealthy people should weigh down unhealthy people. When those unhealthy people made bad decisions about there health.

Simple scenario, eat healthy, dont smoke, and dont do drugs. And if you do, prepare to pay for it and accept the consequences of your actions.

And once again, this practice is already showing up in insurance companies, only a matter of time before its across the board.
Cute, but unfounded. Fix or it's worthless.

Quote:
Yet I already proved that it has worked in other countries, and have cited several sources in which state that they would work.
You've cited sides to the debate, which is not equivalent to evidence of success; it's not available in large populations like India, China, etc. however it is implemented in sections of China, India, etc. but that's not Universal now is it? All you did was brush aside the fact that France, Canada, and other countries have less than a 1/5 of the population of the US and proclaimed that it doesn't matter when it clearly and absolutely does.

Next:

Quote:
And once again, when we get into complex issues, such as mental disorders that are treatable, that is something that would be worked on with the patient.

Ill say it again, it would be a very liberal system.

We are the only industrialized country in the world that doesnt have some form of national health care.
We are also one of the most populated industrial countries in the world, further your model does not fit with other standard models at all economically or medically, and further still you really need to stop pretending you understand psychology. You're just butchering it.


Quote:
I did make very clear answers, just pointing out the fallacy of stating that I didnt account for specific occurrences in my original argument.

You states I did list those reasons off in my original post, which is a fallacy b/c the list would be a mile long, that was my point.

Your mental illness point has not left me at a loss of words nor is it even made me come close to saying "i dont know" .
You're very simple. I'm praying you never get to a position of power; I'd be very afraid for those underneath you since you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Let's call it a day?

Last edited by Addle Larson; 07-23-2009 at 08:23 PM.
  #9  
MStevens24
 
Default 07-24-2009, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
You aren't the smartest so I'll keep it short.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
We miss it; your simplistic screening process fails on all fronts. Next Point:
No you miss it, Which I am not surprised.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Source

Next Point:
thats my source! I just posted that SAME thing, it agrees with me, not you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
No response to no point.
Good dodge. You stated Canada has problems

Through those facts, I showed that Canada does not have as many problems as we do, hence they are better off.

I guess you had no response and knew you were proven wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Next:

You know nothing of addiction. Choose a different field, dear fucking God...
You know nothing of addiction, and once again, if they have an addiction, they are unhealthy, hence it would come up in an exam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Next:


Source or you're just BSing.

Next:
Cute, but unfounded. Fix or it's worthless.
No, not really at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
You've cited sides to the debate, which is not equivalent to evidence of success; it's not available in large populations like India, China, etc. however it is implemented in sections of China, India, etc. but that's not Universal now is it? All you did was brush aside the fact that France, Canada, and other countries have less than a 1/5 of the population of the US and proclaimed that it doesn't matter when it clearly and absolutely does.
Cute, but unfounded. Fix or it's worthless.
I brushed it aside b.c I have then entire medical community behind me.

What do you have? nothing, absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
Next:

We are also one of the most populated industrial countries in the world, further your model does not fit with other standard models at all economically or medically, and further still you really need to stop pretending you understand psychology. You're just butchering it.
Furthermore this is a system that has been proposed by most medial personnel.

My professor, the entirety of the AMA, thousands of doctors, thousands of nurses, and 30 industrialized countries all agree with me.

Tell me, what do you have? Quit pretending to have a point when you have none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addle Larson View Post
You're very simple. I'm praying you never get to a position of power; I'd be very afraid for those underneath you since you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Let's call it a day?
Im afraid you fail to understand the medical problem

Your entire argument is focused on mental illness.

When I already proved that mental illness is a very small part of the problem

Your next point dealt with our size as a country, already cited several sources which state that was not a problem

I already proved, though sources, that money is also, not a problem.

None of these facts are disputable, not in the slightest.

So you can go on with your personal attacks and think it means something.

You have done nothing but cry and insult every single person that has said anything against you.

Therefore, you are now on my ignore list, as I wouldn't be caught dead ever having to listen to your statements ever again.

You remind me of someone else on this forum who uses flame bait to get his points across.

Except the difference between him and you is that I respect his view, and he makes good points and knows what he is talking about while doing so, as opposed to you.
  #10  
Addle Larson
 
Default 07-24-2009, 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MStevens24 View Post
That totally sealed the deal. It's like the red warning sign that proves you have no clue.

Oh, a little taste of Irony.

Last edited by BloodAxe; 07-24-2009 at 03:13 PM. Reason: .
Closed Thread
« Flyff World > World Community > Debates »

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.