Joeseph Stack's Suicide Letter

[contactus]

ikieren you're seriously an idiot. stop asking for evidence. Give me "evidence" that you love your mother. Give me "evidence" of a superior being that 95% of the dumbass world believes in.

Finally, give me "evidence" that you don't have a giant pink dildo with purple dots shoved up your rectum right now.

Your country no matter where your dumbass is from is ran by whoever has the most money, period.

So give me EVIDENCE that i'm wrong. dumbass.

[Ikeren]

Evidence that you're wrong?

Canada (+the EU)---public healthcare. It's resoundingly obvious that private healthcare is more profitable (see: US insurance companies fighting tooth and nail to prevent public healthcare). If those with money had complete power, healthcare would be privatized in every nation with public healthcare.

In the US, Obama's health care reform. Admittedly, it didn't go so far as he wanted. But it did go somewhere; subsidizing those making poverty wages, expand eligibility for those with higher income, tax rebates to small businesses with healthcare, tax costs to employers without it, etc.

If people with money (in this case) drug companies (some of the righest corporations world wide) had all the power, why did they let this direct cut in their profits happen? Because they are nice (and benevolent)?


Also, I think there is a little bit of a misconception here about the burden of proof for alternative theory. People arguing the status quo have a much lower burden of proof, and while unfortunate, it's true: there is not much onus for a proponent of the status quo to prove his theory; because most people already believe it. On the other hand, the burden of proof for people supporting alternative theory is substantially higher; because its new material to more people. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but I am pretty sure it is a fact of coherence theories of knowledge that most of us follow.

Also, disproving negatives is substantially more difficult than proving positives (to the point that some say it is impossible). I can give examples where those with money aren't in control endlessly; and someone can always posit an extra idea on the negative proof; for example:
"Maybe the drug companies thought it would be more beneficial to long term profits."
I provide evidence that drug companies don't care about public perception.
"Maybe they changed their minds."
At which point, it is basically impossible to prove that a company has not changed their mind about public perception. It is also, however, difficult to prove that a company has positively changed their mind about public perception; which is a reason to doubt the hypothesis. So while I won't say "You can't prove a negative"; proving a negative is often far more difficult than proving a positive.

[Bannedfornoreason]

Corporations control our government.

Health insurance should not cover a skinned knee or a cavity in your tooth.

Health insurance should cover things that *are unexpected and a catastrophic* the type of thing that would be a total freak accident.

As it is now, the government controls the prices on everything by having this strong grip on every doctor in the country. Everyone pays way too much for something they don't need and often times people pay for tons of shit that they don't want.

If doctors had to compete with each other not only would you get better care, but it would be cheaper. The beauty of free market capitalism in the health field is that there's no such thing as a Walmart of healthcare. There is only one Dr. Richards or Dr. Brown.

Why do those who have power and money push for universal health care? Because your taxes will go to meaningless, crappy health care. None of your money will be tracked, and the bulk of it wont even be used on health care. They simply justify the taxes by saying "don't worry we got your back" Meanwhile they line their pockets and further invest in the destruction of your country.

When's the last time you died or had a catastrophic car accident? It's like buying life insurance at age 23.

[contactus]

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evidence that you're wrong?

Canada (+the EU)---public healthcare. It's resoundingly obvious that private healthcare is more profitable (see: US insurance companies fighting tooth and nail to prevent public healthcare). If those with money had complete power, healthcare would be privatized in every nation with public healthcare.

In the US, Obama's health care reform. Admittedly, it didn't go so far as he wanted. But it did go somewhere; subsidizing those making poverty wages, expand eligibility for those with higher income, tax rebates to small businesses with healthcare, tax costs to employers without it, etc.

If people with money (in this case) drug companies (some of the righest corporations world wide) had all the power, why did they let this direct cut in their profits happen? Because they are nice (and benevolent)?


Also, I think there is a little bit of a misconception here about the burden of proof for alternative theory. People arguing the status quo have a much lower burden of proof, and while unfortunate, it's true: there is not much onus for a proponent of the status quo to prove his theory; because most people already believe it. On the other hand, the burden of proof for people supporting alternative theory is substantially higher; because its new material to more people. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but I am pretty sure it is a fact of coherence theories of knowledge that most of us follow.

Also, disproving negatives is substantially more difficult than proving positives (to the point that some say it is impossible). I can give examples where those with money aren't in control endlessly; and someone can always posit an extra idea on the negative proof; for example:
"Maybe the drug companies thought it would be more beneficial to long term profits."
I provide evidence that drug companies don't care about public perception.
"Maybe they changed their minds."
At which point, it is basically impossible to prove that a company has not changed their mind about public perception. It is also, however, difficult to prove that a company has positively changed their mind about public perception; which is a reason to doubt the hypothesis. So while I won't say "You can't prove a negative"; proving a negative is often far more difficult than proving a positive.

What the fuck makes you think the medical industry has the most money? Please use better keywords in your google searches.