The N95 shortage America can’t seem to fix

On this we agree. Arguing about the various reasons why some people fall behind in such a (patently) fair system is perhaps the central theme of this board

 

Back on topic, I find the n95 incredibly stifling. I'd probably just use for an airplane flight or crowded public transport

 

You seem to have a fervent imagination. If you have a problem with something I wrote, quote me, so I know whatever the hell it is you are talking about, because, obviously, your interpretation of whatever it was that ticked you off is bizarre, at the minimum.

Try me with a quote please, and let's sort out what your fervent imagination is conjuring.

 

No

We only pay one - Medicare and if we want private then we pay for that but I can absolutely assure you I am paying far less than you would for private and it covers some dental, allied health and spectacles

 

Depends

The duckbill type is not too bad and it has the advsntage or easy visual fit. What we probably needed to do was roll out more PAPRs (powers air purifying respirators). They have their issues too but since they are used in mines there is the potential to get your hands on lots and lots -you would have to ensure though that they were fitted with the proper HEPA filters. I am waiting for further information from Melbourne as to why so many staff became infected there. I suspect that building design and lack of flow through ventilation may have played a part. I am also suspicious of those plastic tents they were using as it may have led to an increase in viral concentration. They are now saying that the “intubation boxes” touted by so many are worse than useless

 

Ours is pretty simple - has to be for the average Aussie . We pay. a levy and for that hospital care is free. Doctors - get a rebate and often charge above rebate do not quite free. Medication is subsidised with a “cap” after that it is free

 

To my knowledge, the N95 is the only type that gives a fairly effective presentation to the wearer. All the others mainly protect other people FROM the wearer should the wearer have Covid.

 

A middle class American friend of mine ( family with 2 kids) pays over $20,000 US in private health insurance every year. I think the average for this demographic is almost $30,000 dollars US. Basically an entire reasonable Australian income. He is a reluctant Trumper and one of his few complaints is that POTUS didn't fix this.

Here's the funny bit. he would still rather pay that huge amount of money than one-quarter that amount with the attached constraint that he is subsidising other's healthcare.

 

Yes, the ones with the little filters. They seem to look quite professional. I guess because I'm able to work remotely I've been too lazy to explore other options..

Re. the plastic tents, haven't read much about them. I'll Google later and see what you're talking about

 

Yep! Hate to say but the Yanks have been sold a pup when it comes to healthcare. I work in health in a rural hospital and we will fly anyone that needs a higher level of care to the nearest tertiary facility and that cost is around $20,000 per patient

 

The thing is nothing has ticked me off. I’m amused. How could you miss me quoting the initial post of yours I responded to? It preceded my response in the PF quoting format. If you don’t recall being a proponent of liberal democracy I’m happy to remind you of your position. Seems like something that foundational wouldn’t be something you’d be reluctant to admit to without direct quotes. Anyway, here’s a refresher on what you at one time seemed to believe in regard to liberal democracy.

I guess since you missed the quotation of your original post I responded to here it is.

That should clear things up.

If this was my imagination it wouldn’t be permanent content on PF that I can quote back to you. Thanks for the further amusement.

 

My position is often misunderstood because it’s not typical. I should be more specific but didn’t see the need as your fellow countryman and I seemed to understand one another.

I am in 100% agreement with your stated disparity in total costs to consumer. When I do pay for healthcare it’s actually much cheaper than what an insured consumer would pay. For the same reason yours is cheaper—fewer middlemen. So I believe just as you do that what the US system has devolved into is crapola.

However, there are a couple caveats when it comes to solutions. There is ample evidence voluntary opt in opt out systems can work. Since we know this, and the principles of protection of private property are claimed to be important, I can’t support opting out on the receiving end without the right to opt out on the paying end. I think philosophically I made the reasons pretty clear in my productive and interesting discussion with @Melb_muser. The fact nobody wants to try and refute the philosophical foundation I presented and just revert to “cost” is evidence to me those foundations either aren’t understood by many or must be ignored for convenience sake. After all, if I compel someone to go with me to a retailer and pay half the cost of an electronic device I take to my home and utilize, I’ve saved money. My cost is less! And if the person I compel to pay 50% is richer or poorer than me in no way justifies my act of compulsion.

So my opposition to mandatory cost sharing (which is what we are really discussing) comes from both sides of the equation. I don’t want to be forced to pay for others care but I most certainly don’t want anyone to be forced to pay for mine. That brings us full circle to the idea freedom cuts both ways. In a society that claims to aspire to protection of individual rights the principle can’t be applied subjectively to different areas of life.

It also brings us back to the original main topic of this thread. If the individual doesn’t want to take personal responsibility for any metric, in this case masks on hand to mitigate pandemics, they don’t have the right to make others take the responsibility for them.

 

Since we agree the functionality of your system is superior I have to give the average Aussie credit where due.

And no insurance companies are consuming vast quantities of revenue from both public and private sources, doctor’s malpractice insurance is nil compared to the US, medical training institutions aren’t draining large amounts of capital from the healthcare system, and physician’s compensation is lower than the US. Correct me if I’m in error on any of that.

My overall point is such a system could be created here and it could be done with everyone’s consent.

 

Not only could but should have been created. Look at every other country with a UHC. It is political suicide in those countries to change or challenge it. And there are a LOT of variations on the theme The main problem in America was roo many vested interests in the form of the insurance companies. Those same companies must be desperate for a way to back out of obligations at the moment

 

The system I propose will never exist in the US because affordable healthcare isn’t the goal of those with the ability to change things.

I agree insurance companies are the most visible vested interest. But attorneys and post secondary education are nearly as bad. The US Federal government already spends as much per capita on healthcare as countries like yours. Because so many economic sectors depend on what we call “healthcare” for survival, our system really is unfixable. That’s why both parties talk about fixing it but in reality can only tweak things.

To transition from what we have to what you have would decimate at least three economic sectors leading to economic chaos and destruction. No politician wants to be responsible for that. Nobody working in businesses dependent on healthcare for existence wants that.

The silver lining is that solutions do exist for individuals. Voluntary cost sharing does work. Direct pay works. Medicaid for the truly needy works. (I prefer voluntary charity or non traditional value exchange to Medicare to provide for the needy but that’s another subject). In reality the US citizens are responsible for the mess. They kept trying to game insurance to extract value not paid for and caused rates to rise. They wanted insurance to act as cost sharing instead of insurance. They let insurance companies step into that gap that should have been filled by coops, memberships, and non profit cost sharing organizations.

So really we have the system we created. Unintended consequences now make us want something different, but we are painted into a corner with no way out that isn’t going to get unwanted paint on everyone.

 

Well, I'm happy you are amused, where do I send the bill?

Anyway...

Okay, you've quoted me. but you haven't specified precisely what the bone you are picking with my position is. You have, in a loose way, hinted at it. But that's not
a good way to debate. The better way is to state, up front, what it is, precisely, in my positions offered that you have a problem with. You quoted an entire BLOCK of text and then,, via an implied, but not stated, body language ( if that can be done on the internet, which is why I say 'implied' ) that you have an issue with my view on 'liberal democracy'.

Yes, I am an advocate of liberal democracy, but you haven't told me precisely what your problem with my position is?

Are you nitpicking on the definition of liberal democracy, is that it? Okay, rather than wait for you to be more specific, I can sense where you are going. I mean, it's not like in my 55 years
of thinking about politics, reading about it, polishing my position with regard to it, the thousands of hours of debates I've had with right wingers on internet forums going back to the nineties,
it's not like I haven't heard just about every argument you give before.

Now, if I'm wrong about my assumptions on your position, you can correct me.

I will assume that you think social policies by the left and liberal democracy are incompatible.

IS that it?

I should guess that that is your problem, or forgive me, point of 'amusement' because that is the complete and utterly asinine argument all republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and neoliberals, make.

you see, if you hadn't made a such mealy mouthed post, hinting at your issue, rather than getting right to the point, I wouldn't have to be second guessing what the hell you are talking about.

But, I'm going to guess, you think democrat social polices are incompatible with 'liberal democracy'. or rather, the only philosophy compatible with 'liberal democracy' are the positions made by libertarians, republicans, conservatives, neoliberals, right of center types, and the like. Is that your position? I mean, that usually is the position of most on the right.

Is that it? Please advise, where I go next depends on your answer. Just say 'yes' or 'no', that is all that is required at this juncture. If you have more issues, then spit it out.

Thank you.

 

LOL. Send the bill to whoever confused you on the issues. It wasn’t me.

I was quite clear. You are unwilling to address this.

The above is not cryptic or tangential to the original post of yours I responded to. You chose to not address substance that was provided and continue to whine about right wing, Republicans, etc.

Better hone your senses some more. I’m not right wing, Republicans, Libertarian, Conservative, etc. It’s interesting you assume that I am arguing from one of those positions since all I did was present my thoughts without criticism of Democrats, Progressives or any other demographic often considered diametric to your laundry list of labels. Nor did I claim any of your labels.

So what we have now is your inability to address the content of my posts and are left with simple diversion to more labeling and putting words in my mouth. Again, my points were quite clear. In fact other members who haven’t claimed your expertise understood my posts and commented intelligently.

Now, I really don’t care for argument by labels so here’s the bottom line. Liberal democracy is built on the foundation of protection of property rights and rule of law. Mandated single payer (or whatever it’s being called these days, it’s actually mandated cost sharing) violates both principles. I guess labeling and definition drift allows people to justify violations of those principles, so I see why you are drawn to that argument.

If labels are a “must have” for you, I’m one of a very few socialists here at PF. So from that perspective I agree with your frustration of the misuse of the term. Hell, proclaimed socialists here argue about the definition all the time. You have to forgive others for some confusion. Especially when mandatory cost sharing is essentially this: “From each according to ability; To each according to need“ and they are told it’s Marxist and Marxism is socialism in pursuit of communism.

To be crystal clear again, I care little for labels like democratic socialism, liberal democracy, etc. What I care about are foundational principle that can’t change with the times.

 

I'm with you, labels are a red herring, and a lot of people are wasting a lot of digital space, arguing about it.

Firstly, I assumed you were a right of center type, because your statement, as written, is consistent with conservative and libertarian thinking.

So, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption. But, if you say you are not one of those guys, fine, but you do harbor that view you just wrote.


Now then, before I can go deeper into this argument about 'liberal democracy'
I need to know where you stand on taxation, so here's the question:

Do you support "taxation with representation" (it's historical meaning, i.e., taxes by the 'consent of the governed' ---[established by the vote] )?

Yes or no? ( don't go into 'yes, taxes for this, but not that' that is irrelevant to where I"m about to go, DEPENDING on your answer so please, "yes" or "no" ).

 

So after admitting to use of red herring fallacy you are still unwilling to address this until you gather more information to assign another label....

Ok, if we simply must categorize everyone to form an argument, as presented, the answer to your question is “no”. Now can you address the substance of my post that I’ve presented and now requoted twice for clarification? I know you are trying to figure out which justification best fits and I’m kind of interested to see which one you pick...but I would much prefer you address my posts, not what you want to talk about since my posts have stayed on topic with your content.

 

A tiny air pump maybe vs fan (like Ford the car company made super bulky in conjunction with 3M's filters). The current designs are like $2000+. Get it down the cost of a quiet fish tank pump plus hood and battery, less than $200 (the cost of the current hood), and it makes sense for mass distribution.

Certainly workers would be more comfortable with forced air than sucking hard through a hot mask, but by design most PAPR's do NOT protect the down wind guy, so they are like a mask with valve, so first you have to convince all those "liberals" that said in the other topic that masks with valves were stupid.

We have fifty-one leaders, and fifty legislatures and a Congress, and yet all any "liberal" can do is blame one leader for all problems. Australia barely beats Texas, and is below California economically. So obviously all Australian citizens should have PAPR's by now.

 

Oh? So you chide me for making an assumption about you, then you make an assumption on what I'm going to say? Tsk tsk.

The only point I'm able to presume from your comments, thus far, is you seem to think I am inconsistent, whereby I said I'm for liberal democracy, but other positions I take
you believe are incompatible with that.

You seem to be hung up here:

What’s amusing is you are fine with me deciding on whether to buy my personal healthcare or not, but you don’t want me to be free to decide on whether I buy yours or someone else’s healthcare or not.

First, you are making a few logical fallacies in that statement, and we will get to it. Much of it hinges on what is, and what is not, 'liberal democracy'. Because, your statement, and your statement putting forth the opinion that my position on social policy being, in your point of view, incompatible with 'liberal democracy' , bingo, That's where we start. Because, I cannot address the logical fallacies in your quote, above, without debating the liberal democracy point, first. Because, your argument rises or falls on whether or not you are correct in your belief about what constitutes 'liberal democracy'.

So, in order to resolve whether or to you are correct, or I'm correct, we have to get to the essence of the issue.

So, we are exploring what 'liberal democracy' means, and since we seem to have different ideas as to what is, and what is not, we are debating this point.

Right?

So, on this question:

Do you support "taxation with representation" (it's historical meaning, i.e., taxes by the 'consent of the governed' ---[established by the vote] )?

you answered "no'.

And there can be no qualification on this point, because if you believe taxation ( assuming 'with representation' ) is incompatible with liberal democracy, you'd have a valid point,

IF you were right.,.

See, it CANNOT Be, 'this tax I approve, but that tax, I do not". Why? Because EVERYONE can say the same thing. THe only resolution for taxation, is representation, i.,e WE V'OTE!

Either you accept that the government has the right to tax, or you don't. See, no tax can please everyone. Taxes are distributed in many ways, and no one is going to be happy with the whole banana.

So, you believe the government does not have the right to tax, and taxes are incompatible with 'liberal democracy'. I commend you for not saying 'I approve of this tax, but not that one" bs, at least you are consistent. But, you are consistently wrong.

Taxation is very much compatible with liberal democracy. Libertarians see taxation as a limit on their freedom. But nowhere in the constitution, and rulings from the SCOTUS, does it say 'freedom is absolute'. It cannot possibly be absolute, for if that were true, we'd have chaos. In order for civilization to be civilized, we must, as a group, agree on things, find common ground whereupon we place limits on the fringes of our conflicting desires, and rule on the commonality of our desires, such that we are all not at war with each other.

So, if taxation is incompatible with liberal democracy, then please explain to me why it's in the constitution?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

If the constitution is not the architecture of what liberal democracy is, then what the **** is?

Check mate. . End of argument.

So, let's go further, you wrote:

What’s amusing is you are fine with me deciding on whether to buy my personal healthcare or not, but you don’t want me to be free to decide on whether I buy yours or someone else’s healthcare or not.

You make the same classic logical fallacy that so many libertarians and conservatives make ( oops, you are not one of those guys, sorry ). Still, you make the same mistake.

You make the same error many make, which is to frame, what should be an issue of collective effort, ie., social policy, you frame it on a personal level.

That's anecdotal. That's appealing to 'emotion'. It's a logical fallacy. In fact, it's two logical fallacies:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

The correct way to frame the argument is not "what I want for you, or what I don't want for you". That's a logical fallacy.

THe correct way to frame the argument is, "who are we, as a society?"

Are we the kind of society that should care for the elderly?

Are we the kind of society that should provide education, free of charge, save for sundry items, up to 12th grade?

Are we the kind of society that should provide universal health care, i.e., affordable health care as an option?

Or, are we the kind of society that let's eveyrone do as they ****ing please, without limitations on 'freedom'.?

Free to:

Own machine guns, howitzers, tanks, and why not, ATOMIC BOMBs.

Build a shitty looking house in an expensive neighborhood

Let their lawn go to ****, put rusty junker cars on bricks in nice neighborhoods, and **** the neighbors

Free not to pay taxes, and if you want the fire that broke out on your house, HIRE someone to put it out, or put it out your damn self.

If you are sick, and can't afford a doctor or medicine, you are **** out of luck, you shoulda got a job and saved for such things, blah blah blah.

See where I'm going?

It's one or the other, either you accept the premise that 'liberal democracy' is inclusive of reasonable limits on freedom, or you do not accept it.

Which is it?

There is no middle ground on this pont, that would be another logical fallacy

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

See IF you think the middle ground is the thing, you are accepting the premise that limits on your freedom is compatible with liberal democracy.

You can't be selective on which limit, either you accept limits, or you don't.

Once you accept limits, THEN

it is a question of DEGREE

And, my friend, is decided by one thing, and thing only:

REPRESENTATION, i.e., we vote.

I don't decide for you, funny you put it that way. Nice trick.

The voters decide. So, cya in November

 

I clearly stated I was interested in what justification you would choose.

LOL. Slavery was allowed for in the Constitution. Sorry. Try again.

Yes I see. You are authoritarian and I’m not. You think any problem society encounters must be rectified by compulsion from the state. In my world society can (and often does) address those things without a vote or anyone needing to be compelled to comply.

The argument for individual rights “should” be framed as who are we as a society? LOL.

Well, it’s good to know people are out there that actually believe any right can be violated if a majority wills it. That is your argument, correct? You said it’s one or the other, no middle ground. Slavery with a majority—cool. Collectivization of land—all good if it’s voted on. And don’t even come back with the “reasonable” argument. Reasonable is subjective. Anything goes if the vote approves. There is no middle ground. You are adamant about that.


And your fixation on logical fallacies amuses me again. You’ve admitted to resorting to them already and committed more in this post. I’m long past caring though. I’m interested in issues, ideas, and facts. Not fallacy wars.

Oh, and I’m surprised you aren’t voting. Most people this worked up about the current political climate plan to vote.

 

What is the point?

Strawman. I never said such a thing. Provide the quote, please.

I was not making an argument for 'individual rights'. Strawman. argument

Absolutely not. Given your comments far, you are seeing things that are not there. You are putting words in my mouth.

More strawman arguments. You appear to have no idea what I'm adamant about.

I'm not fixated on anything.

By the way, we do have government, and government does place limits on your freedoms, like it or not.

No way in hell does that equal 'authoritarian'. I said 'the voters decide' and it does, and that is anti-authoritarian as it gets.

You create a fantasy where voters can decide to return to slavery, you posit that as a plausible reality, one of which I would approve, THAT IS A CLASSIC STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

If I committed a logical fallacy, you didn't point it out, so that is a vacuous point.

You do sound a lot like an anarchist, forgive me for pinning a label on you, but there it is.

You completely and utterly missed the points I was making, and then you created an argument that I didn't make, and attacked that. That, by the way, is what a strawman argument is.

If your next rebuttal is as egregiously incompetent as the one I am now replying to, don't bother. We are done. Frankly, I am disappointed in you -- I thought you'd do a lot better, that is why I spent a lot of time on my response. Had I known your rebuttal would be so weak, so anemic, so riddled with strawman arguments and fanciful flights into the bizarre, I wouldn't have wasted my time.

 

I did not assume what you’d say. I clearly stated I was interested in what you would say. The point is you said I made assumptions I didn’t make.

You then asked why taxation was allowed by the constitution if it wasn’t compatible with liberal democracy. I can see you have never thought that argument through and are just repeating something you heard because slavery certainly isn’t compatible with liberal democracy yet it was allowed in the Constitution. Your argument is ridiculous and based on the idea the Constitution gives us rights instead of protecting existing rights.

So the laundry list of things like atomic bombs, fire, medicine, etc. you went on about aren’t things you want government to address using force? Why did you type it all out if you didn’t mean it?

Hello! I’m making the argument for individual rights. Try and keep up with what I’m saying. You posted this in response to my argument for individual rights:

I’m laughing at you thinking the argument for individual rights should be framed on “we” and “society “. LOL

You’ve listed numerous rights you believe can and should be violated. You have not listed any that cannot be violated by a majority. List some that can’t be and clear up your position.

If you aren’t adamant about no middle ground you ought not to post this:

Or this:

It looks like YOU don’t know what you are adamant about.

Then stop repeating yourself.

So? Just like your “it must be liberal democracy if it’s in the Constitution” argument, that’s silly. Having government, having limits, and liking or not liking it has nothing to do with whether a thing violates rights. That’s a bizarre notion. (It’s also a red herring)

So you believe if enough people think the same and vote the same, nothing authoritarian can result? Explain how a single dictator taking an action like imprisoning someone who criticizes his policies is different than a majority sanctioning the same imprisonment for the same reason. Go ahead.

I’ve created no fantasy. I’ve pointed out what is reasonable to one person or group is not reasonable to another. Slavery is a great example. Who are you to say slavery is unreasonable when this country not so long ago had numerous people who thought it was? If they had been in the majority, and voted as a block to preserve slavery, should slavery have been preserved? If not, why not?

I don’t have time or energy to point out all the fallacies you’ve offered. As I said, I’m capable of responding to the content of your posts regardless so it’s a waste of my time. I’m much more interested in core issues than your debate style.

You like labeling others. You’ve labeled me numerous times. You at least got it partly right this time. You don’t like the label of authoritarian in proximity to yourself though, even though you advocate for authoritarianism.

No. I refuted your points. You’ve created your own arguments and I’ve showed where I disagree. I’ve quoted you making the arguments I’ve been responding to.

And there it is folks. Where people always go when they are out of intellectual arguments. Thinly veiled ad hominem with a healthy dose of appeal to the stone. Congratulations, I think you may have set a record for reaching this point in the fewest amount of posts. If this discussion is a waste of your time, it was your choice. I’m always thankful for the opportunity to demonstrate how authoritarian ideas are based on foundations of sand. It’s an added bonus when attitudes like the above paragraph reveal the unwillingness of those that build on that sand to examine the foundation in detail. So thanks for your time, it was of value to the forum.