IdahoBeav
WKR
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2017
- Messages
- 922
They definitely need to move to the right.Maybe, if Canada goes far enough to the right. . .
They definitely need to move to the right.Maybe, if Canada goes far enough to the right. . .
For sure, who doesn’t want to go bankrupt over a medical issue?They definitely need to move to the right.
Is that worse than having to wait months and possibly being denied care or even possibly being recommended for assisted suicide?For sure, who doesn’t want to go bankrupt over a medical issue?
Hit me with a source.Is that worse than having to wait months and possibly being denied care or even possibly being recommended for assisted suicide?
Hit me with a source.
I’ll check out the “Reason” article, they are considered credible. Give me a bit and I’ll read it on the bus ride home.Canadian Health Care Leaves Patients Frozen In Line
This year, Canadian patients faced a median wait of 27.7 weeks for medically necessary treatment from a specialist after being referred by a general practitioner.www.forbes.com
Some Canadian health care patients say they’re being encouraged to just die already
Sick Canadians should have their right to die respected, but government-funded healthcare workers shouldn't be pushing it on patients to save money.reason.com
So you're going to go with an ad hominem on Forbes because of "Least Biased" and "Mostly Factual" ratings?I’ll check out the “Reason” article, they are considered credible. Give me a bit and I’ll read it on the bus ride home.
As for Forbes…
View attachment 818049
Forbes - Bias and Credibility
LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion ormediabiasfactcheck.com
I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is. Pointing out that a source isn’t as credible as it could be is not ad hominem. You’d likely have the same reaction if I posted something by Newsweek (or a left leaning counterpart).So you're going to go with an ad hominem on Forbes because of "Least Biased" and "Mostly Factual" ratings?
When you read the news, are you reading to learn or are you only reading to confirm your own beliefs?
I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is. Pointing out that a source isn’t as credible as it could be is not ad hominem.
I’ll post stuff from highly credible sources, you should do the same.
They aren’t rated as high credibility. Would you accept something from The Guardian? How about the New York Post? It isn’t attacking a person (ad hominem literally means “to the person”) to expect sources be highly credible. Forbes is not a person, it is a publication.As in attacking the source instead of the argument?
FYI, your metric shows Forbes as being quite credible and showing little bias.
They aren’t rated as high credibility. Would you accept something from The Guardian? How about the New York Post? It isn’t attacking a person (ad hominem literally means “to the person”) to expect sources be highly credible. Forbes is not a person, it is a publication.
Breitbart… seriously? How about the National Enquirer?It is very possible that I would accept something from the Guardian or NYP. Both of them have done many factual stories. I would investigate farther, but they are certainly not automatically ignored due to reputation.
Sometimes it takes a biased source to break a story, like Breitbart and the Anthony Weiner scandal.
Ethos fallacy or genetic fallacy may be more fitting, but it most certainly is a fallacy of logic to reject an argument because it is being supported by a Forbes publication.
Breitbart… seriously? How about the National Enquirer?
Let’s set a benchmark, and post sources that have high credibility ratings. That’s pretty common among the media literate, and will save both of us having to fact check every claim made by a source.
“Mostly Factual” means you need to fact check their articles. Breitbart is even worse, and a hive of fascist white nationalism.They released the story when others wouldn't.
Nonetheless, Forbes is considered credible by most, including the metric that you posted.
Using the term "fascist white nationalism" is an extreme indicator of bias. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they use this term. Nonetheless, it doesn't automatically dismiss your argument.“Mostly Factual” means you need to fact check their articles. Breitbart is even worse, and a hive of fascist white nationalism.
Canadian healthcare isn’t without flaws, they rank 32; the US ranks 69 (of 167). We’re just above Algeria.
Health and health system ranking of countries worldwide in 2023 | Statista
The dataset shows the ranking of world's best health and healthcare systems according to the Legatum Institute Foundation's most recent rating.www.statista.com
Canada's Trudeau set to resign any day as Finance Minister resigns
Maybe, if Canada goes far enough to the right. . . They definitely need to move to the right.rokslide.com
I am 100% bias against bigotry, I won’t pretend otherwise.Using the term "fascist white nationalism" is an extreme indicator of bias. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they use this term. Nonetheless, it doesn't automatically dismiss your argument.
A random online list that requires a paid subscription to further research its analysis is not going to convince me that the hospitals in Saudi Arabia and Iran are better than those in the US. Much of the "US healthcare sucks" narrative is driven by agenda and by veiling the obesity epidemic as a failure of privately funded healthcare.
On this, we very strongly disagree. As it is a matter of opinion, there isn’t much use arguing about it.Healthcare isn't a human right…
On this, we mostly agree, we are also one of the richest, and could afford healthcare for all if we were to tax the rich as we should.… but the US is the most medically advanced and innovative nation on earth…
Which ones, and how so?These reference documents are as credible as the riflescope drop test.