Question for libertarians & conservatives

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Sep 23, 2021.

  1. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is logical and makes eminent sense. However, the answer or conclusion is far from automatic.
     
  2. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am in the low end of the 1% in a good year, and 2 or 3% in a bad year. Trust me, I pay WAY more than my fair share in taxes. I would be an abject fool to desire for the government to nationalize healthcare and expand government by 20%.

    Jeff Bezos has not one thing to do with that calculation. The left likes to parade out the big bad billionaires as the boogeyman to justify their boondoggles, but in reality it is regular people that make a good living that truly pay the bulk of your utopian desires. The notion that I and others should be forced to pay for Mr 50th percentile's healthcare is preposterous. Whom owns what has not one thing to do with this discussion. It is solely about income, NOT assets.
     
    mswan and RodB like this.
  3. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which would make their results worse, not better. Malnutrition would be proceeded by lower immunity. So that doesn't make any sense.

    These idiotic media stories about ONLY the unvaccinated are being hospitalized is a lie.

    Study: COVID recovery gave Israelis longer-lasting Delta defense than vaccines
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/study-covid-recovery-gave-israelis-longer-lasting-delta-defense-than-vaccines/
    The variant was 27 times more likely to break through Pfizer protection from January-February and cause symptoms than it was to penetrate natural immunity from the same period. People who had two vaccine shots had a six-fold higher chance of getting infected with Delta than patients who hadn’t been vaccinated but previously contracted the coronavirus, according to the research.

    Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital
    https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

    The study, conducted in one of the most highly COVID-19–vaccinated countries in the world, examined medical records of tens of thousands of Israelis, charting their infections, symptoms, and hospitalizations between 1 June and 14 August, when the Delta variant predominated in Israel. It’s the largest real-world observational study so far to compare natural and vaccine-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2, according to its leaders.

    The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First, 25% of the population is a huge section of a population. that's nothing to laugh at.

    Biden has stated, that in order to get the economy on the road to solid and steady growth, you have to go after the virus with full force.

    What that means is that their might be a temporary set back in business, but it's strategic planning, for the long range.

    If the virus engulfs everyone, and it could grow greater than 25%, ideas like 'economy' will have little meaning.

    Let's take a historical example, when we, in CA, made it illegal for cars not to have catalytic converters.

    Lots' of republicans balked at it, 'would destroy jobs' they said.

    But it didn't, and what it did do is improve people's heath, fewer doctor visits, and, when I drove down the 91 freeway from Orange County to the Beach, where, before the catalytic converter was law, and i couldn't see downtown from the freeway, where several years after the law was enacted, I could, it was a refreshing sight to know that the air was cleaner.

    Let's plan for the future, and quit being the barking dog to the firetruck that is on it's way to the fire.

    Just sayin'.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not.

    Your mischaracterizations aside ( which do not constitute a merit worthy counter argument), I explained precisely why.

    That you choose to ignore it, that's up to you.
     
  6. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CDC says that the vast majority of COVID deaths are with the unvaccinated group.

    that's good enough for me.
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Listen to the many lectures by Nick Hanauer on YouTube. See what you think.

    He is a 1 percenter, probably a 1/10 of 1 percenter, who is an investment banker, some of his ideas are very interesting, dealing with this issue.
     
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Assets are swelling on the high end at a rapid rate.

    So, the super rich game the system. they will take less income, and let assets grow, that way they'll pay less in taxes.

    But swelling assets at the high end level, is it any different that a swelling bank account?

    On a smaller scale, you could argue it's different, but there reaches a threshold where there is little or no difference, and it becomes a subterfuge to avoid taxes.
    No, I'm not saying it's illegal, it's perfectly legal, but that isn't the point.

    As for 'my utopian vision', that's just boogeyman-ism (yeah, you guys do it, too).

    Health care dollars are being spent, no matter what system is in place.

    With UHC, we are merely redirecting a portion of the health care dollar stream into a more efficient system, one that includes everyone.

    Without UHC, (those who cannot afford health care insurance ) someone goes to the emergency room, but always when there is an emergency, noting that he or she is still billed for the expense, which will bankrupt that person. ( that's what happened to me, back in 2007, though I didn't declare bankruptcy but only because I had no assets to protect , most would have, and I probably should have, I'm told ).

    With UHC, someone goes to a clinic where they have scheduled doctor visits. Hell, even when I forget, my nurse calls me to come in (I have medicare advantage).

    No bankruptcy, fewer 'emergencies'.

    UHC will be a net savings for society, so an increase in taxes is offset by a decrease in premiums, as in NO premiums.

    The net cost to society will be less, this is why the average cost of health care in the 50 or so western developed nations, the per capita cost
    is roughly half of what it is in the US. Now, some argue that US incurs more costs, and that is true, it is also true that AMericans are not as stingy
    with their health care dollars as the other countries. But that doesn't alter the premise. What? Because when it's 50% cheaper, that leaves a lot of headroom to counter the argument.

    Not only that, the nation will be healthier.

    Here's another thing you are not factoring in.

    Not having health care causes worry, not having health care causes more debt, and worry and more debt increases stress, and stress increases illness.

    When everyone is covered the national morale is better, and healthier.



    Listen to the many lectures by Nick Hanauer, who is a 1/10th of one percenter, an investment banker, who addresses these issues, he's on YouTube.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  9. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,000
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have never disagreed with that.

    I will explain again for the umpteenth time. They generally present statistics to make a point. The point being how effective the shots are. The other side I automatically look at is what is the other side of the equation. It is immensely important. I have been indoctrinated with this my whole adult life

    The first link said 99.5% that means there is a one in two hundred chance of a patient being a covid shot patient. The second link said one in twenty nine. That is around seven times as likely that a person in the hospital has had a covid shot as opposed to the earlier statistic.. That kind of number is important. If nothing else, it shows a bad trend.

    You are the one who presented both links
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    But it has always been true that getting an illness is better than getting the vaccine.

    I have had all three, measles, mumps, and rubella. I had blood test titers done and the nurse called me to tell me that I do not need the vaccine, that I have immunity. These antibodies in me giving me immunity were made in the 50s, when I had gotten these diseases as a child, long before the vaccines were invented. No vaccine can impart immunity for that long without boosters, I'm told

    However, if I hadn't gotten the diseases when I was child, would I get the vaccine now? Hell yes.

    So, I'm not sure what argument you are making here.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  11. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hold your horses, kriman, you are getting your numbers mixed up. That's okay, you are 84, you are exused.

    Now then,

    If I recall correctly ( provide the link, please, I lost it )
    That is not what the quote says, it says that 99.5% of covid deaths are in the unvaccinated group. That's not the same thing
    as '99.5% means there is a one in 200 chance of being a patient being a covid shot patient'

    If 99.5% of covid deaths are in the vaccinated group, that is a completely different statistic than whatever the odds are of getting covid if you don't get the shot. That stat is not mentioned. It is mentioned later, "29 times more likely' So, let's take a look.
    The second quote is:

    Unvaccinated people are about 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated, according to a CDC study released Tuesday.


    That stat does NOT conflict with the stat that 99.5% covid deaths are in the unvaccinated group.

    Unvaxxed are 29 times more likely to get Covid .

    OF those that DO get covid ( which includes both vaxxed and unvaxxed ) 99.5% who die are those in the unvaxxed group.

    See?

    There is no conflict

    Think about it, it will come to you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  12. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,000
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You quoted months old statistic in a rapidly changing situation. If you are going to quote statistics, at least use current statistics.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  13. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Check out "confiscation" in your Funk-n Wagnells.
     
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly my point about the failure of Western cultures to incorporate their elderly in the picture of family life - and the comensurate failure of our elderly to respect their youngers enough to hand over the reins to them. The cycle of mutual interdependence doesn't work, when one of the generations refuses to live according to its rhythms. It breaks down the structure, and everyone loses as a result.

    In the meantime, not sure why you think it's reasonable for an elderly person to be an addict, or a gambler, or in some other way toxic or irresponsible - and expect to be supported. Once again, I'm not talking about 'broken' people, I'm talking about mature adults who are responsible enough to avoid such things, because they understand and accept their obligation to maintaining a healthy collective. That's what mutual obligation looks like. Collectivism isn't 'free stuff', it's deep social responsibility. If you want the benefits of it, you have to live in a way which supports it. For elderly people who don't want any assistance from family, sure thing .. go nuts and kill yourself or bankrupt yourself. For those who either need or want assistance, they have a 'basic human decency' responsibility to live in a way which isn't abuse of that resource.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  15. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,000
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you consider one in two hundred to be the same as one in twenty nine? There is nearly an order of magnitude difference.
     
  16. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,000
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You recall wrong. Your own quote: "But, here is the inescapable fact: 99.5% of the ICU Covid beds are occupied by the UNVACCINATED."

    Apparently being 84 is not as bad as being you and not knowing what the hell you are talking about.
     
  17. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    20,939
    Likes Received:
    15,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its not just the unvaccinated being hospitalized as the media claims. Vaccinated are being hospitalized and dying as well.
     
    mswan likes this.
  18. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,425
    Likes Received:
    2,860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't know the history of medicine at all then. Back then, doctors were more likely to prescribe something that makes it worse than better. They tried to bleed people out for illness to balance the humours (allopaths) or give people mercury which killed them. They meant well but the science wasn't there yet.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blo... the early decades of,morning of 13 July 1824.

    Context matters and each right is different. You want an established one the government provides? Okay. It's why the government must provide a lawyer to have representation at trial if one cannot afford one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  19. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Better to isolate aprox. 25 precent of the population rather than isolating 100 percent of the population.:roll: Further, worrying about cases puts too much a strain on hosptial resources when approx. 25 percent of the population are threatened with a Covid infection.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
  20. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am really not interested in going off on this tangent to this degree in a thread that has nothing to do with that topic.

    I oppose UHC on a lot of levels for a wide variety of reasons, but currently we are talking about how it affects me personally.

    You and others on the left always speak about it as if it saves everyone money. It would save Mr 50th percentile a hell of a lot of money. That person already pays little if any in the way of federal income taxes, and if the government takes over healthcare, they will pay little if any of that either. It would likely save Mr 60th percentile a great deal of money too. The 80th percentile and up would ultimately end up footing the majority of that bill for everyone else.

    My point is that it will save some people money, and cost a great deal more for others. It depends upon where one sits in the pecking order. You may call my position selfish because it looks only at my position, but it is bigger than just me. I have two kids, one a recent college graduate and one still in college, and obviously I want what is best for them. Undoubtedly, they will start out in life lower in the income percentile brackets like all young people, and may benefit early on from having their healthcare subsidized by everyone else. The problem is, as they move up in income brackets as they age, they will switch from net takers to net givers very quickly, and in the long run, it will end up costing them a great deal more money in their lifetime. I would much rather have a society where people have the ability to aspire to greater achievement without being burdened with carrying the load for those that are mediocre. It is the mediocres responsibility to pay for their own healthcare. Of course the truly poor should be carried, but we are not talking about the poor. They already have Medicaid as they should.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
    RodB likes this.
  21. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you think the FDA works for you? Do you know who is in charge and how they are funded? You are 100% right about human nature. Even without warning labels, people know that the foods they eat are unhealthy. We certainly cannot expect politicians to bite the hand that elects them.

    If you have netflix, "What the Health" in an interesting documentary.
     
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Okay, you wrote:

    You mean the decisions like shutting down economies, shutting down social groups and shutting down people psychologically? Over approx. 25% at risk??


    And now you are suggesting isolation of 25% of the population?

    First, Biden did not 'isolate 100% of the country'. No one is considering that. Now then....

    Isolating 25%, which would be a number pushing 100,000, 000 people, would be a logistical nightmare, which is why the middle path is to ask people to mask, to socially distance, etc.

    In short, your suggestion is more constrictive on the economy than what Biden is doing.

     
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,388
    Likes Received:
    17,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The triage you describe is an emergency measure and therefore not a guide to general policy. That said, I have no problem including in an emergency triage prioritization process any of the factors you named. Feel free also to include age and general state of health.
     
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I successfully refuted your claim, and I used the latest numbers which were available ( I looked for later numbers, didn't find them ) one of them was made in august.

    My point stands, regardless.
     
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,272
    Likes Received:
    16,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Not saying I don't have issues the FDA, they do have issues which are a concern for citizens, but there is no other agency policing the field, as far as I know.
     

Share This Page