Look, can we stop blathering irrelevantly about state violence, slavery, freedom and tomatoes?Not really. (OK maybe tomatoes, but I really like tomatoes.)
However, for me, state violence and the rightful use thereof is the very definition of slavery and freedom.
My fairly extreme view of this is a minority position. Others are likely to have a much more practical approach to the whole affair. I am unwilling to accept limitations on fundamental adult human rights in the interests of practicality.
Bitter thorn, i want to ask you a series of questions, they are going somewhere, i promise.
Is it okay for you to use violance on another person, if they where trying to kill or enslave you or a member of your family? Is it okay if they are trying to forcibly indoctronate you into their religion?
Yes to both assuming forcible indoctrination involves literal force or the threat thereof.
Yes to both assuming forcible indoctrination involves literal force or the threat thereof.Look, can we stop blathering irrelevantly about state violence, slavery, freedom and tomatoes?Not really. (OK maybe tomatoes, but I really like tomatoes.)
However, for me, state violence and the rightful use thereof is the very definition of slavery and freedom.
My fairly extreme view of this is a minority position. Others are likely to have a much more practical approach to the whole affair. I am unwilling to accept limitations on fundamental adult human rights in the interests of practicality.
Bitter thorn, i want to ask you a series of questions, they are going somewhere, i promise.
Is it okay for you to use violance on another person, if they where trying to kill or enslave you or a member of your family? Is it okay if they are trying to forcibly indoctronate you into their religion?
Good.
Is it acceptable to use Violance on another person, if they where trying to kill, enslave or forcibly indoctrinate, your neighbour, his family esq. all?
And it acceptable for your neighbour to use violance to protect you, your family and property from the same?
|
Look, can we stop blathering irrelevantly about state violence, slavery, freedom and tomatoes?Not really. (OK maybe tomatoes, but I really like tomatoes.)
However, for me, state violence and the rightful use thereof is the very definition of slavery and freedom.
My fairly extreme view of this is a minority position. Others are likely to have a much more practical approach to the whole affair. I am unwilling to accept limitations on fundamental adult human rights in the interests of practicality.
Ah, fair enough. If practicality is not considered, then we can at least achieve understanding.
The argument aginst them is that they won't raise enough money to 'fix' the system in its entirety so why bother? I ask why the heck not?
There are other things that could be fixed but they too get ignored because they're not big enough. Why? *sigh*
Sometimes I feel like we're not actually addressing the problem. Aubrey pointed to what really seems to be the problem -- the actual cost of our health care. We're talking about taxing the people to cover this. We're talking about the government paying for it. But we're not actually talking about reducing the cost of health care. Having the government pay for this won't change this fact. And (in theory) the money that they would need to raise to pay for this would need to come from somewhere. The cost needs to be addressed first.
So, for me, it's not so much "why bother?", but more "why are we addressing the symptom rather than the problem?" It feels like we're applying a band-aid to fix a heart attack.
+1 Well said sir.
we may disagree about methods of acheiveing the goal but the goal is the same, to lower the cost of health care in order to make it more available to more americans.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The argument aginst them is that they won't raise enough money to 'fix' the system in its entirety so why bother? I ask why the heck not?
There are other things that could be fixed but they too get ignored because they're not big enough. Why? *sigh*
Sometimes I feel like we're not actually addressing the problem. Aubrey pointed to what really seems to be the problem -- the actual cost of our health care. We're talking about taxing the people to cover this. We're talking about the government paying for it. But we're not actually talking about reducing the cost of health care. Having the government pay for this won't change this fact. And (in theory) the money that they would need to raise to pay for this would need to come from somewhere. The cost needs to be addressed first.
So, for me, it's not so much "why bother?", but more "why are we addressing the symptom rather than the problem?" It feels like we're applying a band-aid to fix a heart attack.
+1 Well said sir.
we may disagree about methods of acheiveing the goal but the goal is the same, to lower the cost of health care in order to make it more available to more americans.
Some of my ESL students who were doctors in their home countries have told me that it is easier for them to become recertified in the US than it is in Canada. That should help the American system. Is that true to your knowledge?
We lost our favourite pediatrician because she left for the US. She was officially only a nurse here, but our family doctor deferred to her on any health issues related to our daughter because she had worked as a pediatrician in Poland. She was just excellent.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
we may disagree about methods of acheiveing the goal but the goal is the same, to lower the cost of health care in order to make it more available to more americans.
Up thread, it was suggested that the promotion of good health could reduce the costs of health care.
Rural towns, already suffering from the rural-to-urban brain drain could benefit, if they were able to argue for the health benefits of fresh air, fresh food, space to play and exercise, lakes, mountains, etc.
Yes to both assuming forcible indoctrination involves literal force or the threat thereof.Look, can we stop blathering irrelevantly about state violence, slavery, freedom and tomatoes?Not really. (OK maybe tomatoes, but I really like tomatoes.)
However, for me, state violence and the rightful use thereof is the very definition of slavery and freedom.
My fairly extreme view of this is a minority position. Others are likely to have a much more practical approach to the whole affair. I am unwilling to accept limitations on fundamental adult human rights in the interests of practicality.
Bitter thorn, i want to ask you a series of questions, they are going somewhere, i promise.
Is it okay for you to use violance on another person, if they where trying to kill or enslave you or a member of your family? Is it okay if they are trying to forcibly indoctronate you into their religion?
Good.
Is it acceptable to use Violance on another person, if they where trying to kill, enslave or forcibly indoctrinate, your neighbour, his family esq. all?
And it acceptable for your neighbour to use violance to protect you, your family and property from the same?
Yes. (Although I would exclude mutually consensual acts like assisted suicide from this definition of violence.)
Look, can we stop blathering irrelevantly about state violence, slavery, freedom and tomatoes?
+1
Though I must point out that when my tomatoes ripen en masse I CHOOSE to share that bounty, which I would not be surprised to find another doing. This choice is mine. I too would be offended if someone took that choice away from me. Maybe this will explain the real point some have mocked to the point of blathering.
And for those of you that choose to ignore/ridicule the allusion bear in mind that these are not things growing in the wild. They are grown on soil that is paid for, soil that has been prepared and nutrients added, weeded, staked, nurtured, and protected from infestation. And the point that the unemployed father of a hungry family should not/could not perform that labor himself. And when the grower shares, he or she shares more than the end product.
You dismiss the labor and knowledge involved because it is not your own. Liken it to the sweat equity one performs on a house to increase its value. It does have a real value. The tomatoe example has no value to you so you mock it. Yet you pretend that you want to understand another's mindset. That is the real mockery. Sadly, I'm not the least surprised to see it appear in this thread.
Apologies to those of you who are genuine in your premises. You are too few, but I appreciate you nonetheless.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You dismiss the labor and knowledge involved because it is not your own. Liken it to the sweat equity one performs on a house to increase its value. It does have a real value. The tomatoe example has no value to you so you mock it. Yet you pretend that you want to understand another's mindset. That is the real mockery. Sadly, I'm not the least surprised to see it appear in this thread.
Are you talking about my post?
Why not be specific in your criticisms?
After reading the first page of this thread I promised I wouldn’t post here, but I just can’t hold my tongue any longer.
Tomatoes are disgusting.
There, now I feel better. Continue you discussion on the tyranny of libraries or whatever.
You dismiss the labor and knowledge involved because it is not your own. Liken it to the sweat equity one performs on a house to increase its value. It does have a real value. The tomatoe example has no value to you so you mock it. Yet you pretend that you want to understand another's mindset. That is the real mockery. Sadly, I'm not the least surprised to see it appear in this thread.Are you talking about my post?
Why not be specific in your criticisms?
No, the barrage of dismissive/mocking ones. Challenging ones are A-OK. Specificity is mostly pointless. They require too much brain power for me right now, and if metaphors get ignored I suspect direct rebuttals would be too. I believe some people have their minds already made up, and it is truly disingenuous to pounce on someone they disagree with and mock his metaphor and his explanation of said metaphor.
My POV differs in its intensity to the allusion but it doesn't make it invalid.
Ridiculing the person or their POV is what set me off. And is why I believe the OP's point has been put aside in favor of flame.
|
|
Though I must point out that when my tomatoes ripen en masse I CHOOSE to share that bounty, which I would not be surprised to find another doing. This choice is mine. I too would be offended if someone took that choice away from me. Maybe this will explain the real point some have mocked to the point of blathering.
And for those of you that choose to ignore/ridicule the allusion bear in mind that these are not things growing in the wild. They are grown on soil that is paid for, soil that has been prepared and nutrients added, weeded, staked, nurtured, and protected from infestation. And the point that the unemployed father of a hungry family should not/could not perform that labor himself. And when the grower shares, he or she shares more than the end product.
You dismiss the labor and knowledge involved because it is not your own. Liken it to the sweat equity one performs on a house to increase its value. It does have a real value. The tomatoe example has no value to you so you mock it. Yet you pretend that you want to understand another's mindset. That is the real mockery. Sadly, I'm not the least surprised to see it appear in this thread.
Apologies to those of you who are genuine in your premises. You are too few, but I appreciate you nonetheless.
I'm not sure I fully grasp your point, but you seem to be saying that if you choose to give away the fruits of your labour, that is OK, but the state expecting to take it from you in the form of taxation isn't. While it would be nice to think that individual generosity is sufficient to solve the problems of the less fortunate I just don't see it happening in the amount necessary to deal with the issues. That's why I see the necessity for state intervention through taxation.
Oh, and equity in your home is not wealth. House prices going up don't make the nation wealthier, they simply transfer wealth from the purchaser to the vendor. It isn't earned income at all, and the net benefit to the ecnomy is zero.
I wasn't mocking the tomato analogy, I was pointing out that it seemed, as framed, to have very little to do with the point in question. Plus the poster's view seemed spectacularly incoherent. I am all in favour of clear communication but if posters don't really want to engage except to wander in the hinterlands of non-existent slavery and violence I'm not going to be especially receptive to their views in a thread about whether the government should provide universal healthcare in the US, especially when my experience of universal healthcare as a citizen in the UK is radically different from their apocalyptic visions.
|
And charity does work, quite well. Far more efficient than the government model. I asked why you don't take ownership for the orphan that you demand I care for. You didn't answer. There's the problem with your argument: if it is so very important to you, why are you not doing it? No, instead you need someone with a big stick to make sure that I do what you want me to . . . nope, not gonna happen. I have a child, and he's my priority, not an orphan that even the leftists don't want to take care of. Charity has existed for thousands of years, and works quite well.
Charity works well for whom? Are you suggesting that poverty was less of a problem prior to the development of a social safety net (i.e., welfare, medicaid/medicare, social security, etc.)? I would very much like to know what the basis of that opinion is.
Though I can't speak for anyone else, my sense is that charity will not ever ensure an acceptable minimum standard of living (food, shelter, clothing, basic education) for all people in need. Moreover it's a gross mischaracterization to say that "leftists don't want to take care of [orphans]." Rather (1) we can't do it alone and (2) most (probably) believe that there is a collective moral obligation to ensure that it gets done. Accordingly, the government takes a portion of the taxes paid by everyone to provide for the basic needs of people who can't provide for themselves.
And no, this is not slavery. If you don't like paying taxes, you can (a) not work, purchase, and/or own things, or (b) try and live somewhere without taxes (and good luck finding such a place!). Your taxes go to maintain the superstructure of the society you rely on to make your own income. Your life is permeated with the benefits you obtain by virtue the taxes you (and others) pay - and your standard of living could not be maintained without them.
...Tomatoes are disgusting.
You don't like lasagna, spaghetti, pizza, or catsup?!
Those red round things in the produce section of the grocery store are very poor relatives to a decent homegrown tomato. If I ever get canning supplies, I'll have to mail you a jar of canned marinara sauce made from heirloom black, green, and red tomatoes (cooked down to reduce the liquid and adding some oregano makes it into pretty good pizza sauce too).
I'm not sure I fully grasp your point, but you seem to be saying that if you choose to give away the fruits of your labour, that is OK, but the state expecting to take it from you in the form of taxation isn't. While it would be nice to think that individual generosity is sufficient to solve the problems of the less fortunate I just don't see it happening in the amount necessary to deal with the issues. That's why I see the necessity for state intervention through taxation.Though I must point out that when my tomatoes ripen en masse I CHOOSE to share that bounty, which I would not be surprised to find another doing. This choice is mine. I too would be offended if someone took that choice away from me. Maybe this will explain the real point some have mocked to the point of blathering.
And for those of you that choose to ignore/ridicule the allusion bear in mind that these are not things growing in the wild. They are grown on soil that is paid for, soil that has been prepared and nutrients added, weeded, staked, nurtured, and protected from infestation. And the point that the unemployed father of a hungry family should not/could not perform that labor himself. And when the grower shares, he or she shares more than the end product.
You dismiss the labor and knowledge involved because it is not your own. Liken it to the sweat equity one performs on a house to increase its value. It does have a real value. The tomatoe example has no value to you so you mock it. Yet you pretend that you want to understand another's mindset. That is the real mockery. Sadly, I'm not the least surprised to see it appear in this thread.
Apologies to those of you who are genuine in your premises. You are too few, but I appreciate you nonetheless.
Partially true, but not all. I'm in favor of taxation to meet the needs of society. I'm not in favor of it being so excessive that people choose to rely on the govt rather than themselves. What I give out in charity goes beyond what the state takes but I still do it. I do it because I see a shortfall and I have the means to help. The desire to help. And yes, not enough people do it. Higher taxes will reduce my ability to direct my aid, and a chunk of that increase will simply be wasted by a bigger govt.
How many things could be fixed in our world if govt incompetence/fraud were eliminated? A lot. But I don't see many genuine efforts on their parts to fix those problems, and our ability as citizens to change that are limited to the over-politicized voting booths or unlikely recalls.
EDIT: and no fair editing your post while I'm tryin to reply! lol. Aubrey, you are one of the genuine ones an I agree with a lot of your points. Like I said, I have no problem with a genuine rebuttal.
...Tomatoes are disgusting.You don't like lasagna, spaghetti, pizza, or catsup?!
Those red round things in the produce section of the grocery store are very poor relatives to a decent homegrown tomato. If I ever get canning supplies, I'll have to mail you a jar of canned marinara sauce made from heirloom black, green, and red tomatoes (cooked down to reduce the liquid and adding some oregano makes it into pretty good pizza sauce too).
And Ambrosia, nice tomatoes. ;) Your heirlooms, I mean. Oh, forget it. It's impossible to compliment a lady about her tomatoes and make it genuine. ;)
...Tomatoes are disgusting.You don't like lasagna, spaghetti, pizza, or catsup?!
Those red round things in the produce section of the grocery store are very poor relatives to a decent homegrown tomato. If I ever get canning supplies, I'll have to mail you a jar of canned marinara sauce made from heirloom black, green, and red tomatoes (cooked down to reduce the liquid and adding some oregano makes it into pretty good pizza sauce too).
No, I like lasagna, spaghetti, and pizza (which really as far as the tomato is concerned is the same thing) catsup I could do without. But really I don't think any of those things taste like tomatoes even though the horrible little fruit is a primary ingredient. Just goes to show you that if you liquify something and add enough salt and other spices you can make nearly any food tasty.
|
|
Partially true, but not all. I'm in favor of taxation to meet the needs of society. I'm not in favor of it being so excessive that people choose to rely on the govt rather than themselves. What I give out in charity goes beyond what the state takes but I still do it. I do it because I see a shortfall and I have the means to help. The desire to help. And yes, not enough people do it. Higher taxes will reduce my ability to direct my aid, and a chunk of that increase will simply be wasted by a bigger govt.
How many things could be fixed in our world if govt incompetence/fraud were eliminated? A lot. But I don't see many genuine efforts on their parts to fix those problems, and our ability as citizens to change that are limited to the over-politicized voting booths or unlikely recalls.
Well that's fair enough and I agree with that. What really divides us is how much should we tax and where should it be spent, which is the relevant issue here. Certainly universal healthcare in the current unreformed US system would probably be a recipe for financial disaster, and that is a nettle that remains ungrasped by most politicians on both sides at the moment, it seems.
EDIT: Ah, sorry, but then we both seem to be doing it!
(b) try and live somewhere without taxes (and good luck finding such a place!).
Well, there was that Rapture place...
Last time I checked Obama got the plurality of the vote, did he not? So, if he said he was going to provide accessible health coverage for all, and the people voted him in, doesn't that give him the mandate to do it?
Isn't this democracy in action?
Obama and the democrats won due to "Change you can believe in", "I am not George Bush" (VERY popular with the American public) and "I am not a republican".
Independents are now shocked and angered to learn that Obama's "change" is not something they want or believe in, that Obama is just like George Bush (IraqWar/ObamaCare despite the public being against it) and democrats are even more corrupt and unethical than the slime-bag republicans they voted out of congress.
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
It seems to be.
If you'd like some tomatoes, you may ask me for them. I'll possibly provide them out of charity.
But you have no inheirent right to my luscious tomatoes growing in the sunshine, glistening with morning dew. Mmmm . . . they sure are tasty. I bet if that neighbor down the street was actually nice and friendly, I'd give him some. But we're not talking about charity, we're talking about using force to take those tomatoes in order to give them to someone else. I had plans for those tomatoes. They were going to the market to help pay for my son's college bill.
Partially true, but not all. I'm in favor of taxation to meet the needs of society. I'm not in favor of it being so excessive that people choose to rely on the govt rather than themselves. What I give out in charity goes beyond what the state takes but I still do it. I do it because I see a shortfall and I have the means to help. The desire to help. And yes, not enough people do it. Higher taxes will reduce my ability to direct my aid, and a chunk of that increase will simply be wasted by a bigger govt.
How many things could be fixed in our world if govt incompetence/fraud were eliminated? A lot. But I don't see many genuine efforts on their parts to fix those problems, and our ability as citizens to change that are limited to the over-politicized voting booths or unlikely recalls.
Well that's fair enough and I agree with that. What really divides us is how much should we tax and where should it be spent, which is the relevant issue here. Certainly universal healthcare in the current unreformed US system would probably be a recipe for financial disaster, and that is a nettle that remains ungrasped by most politicians on both sides at the moment, it seems.
EDIT: Ah, sorry, but then we both seem to be doing it!
Another thing we have in common! :)
|
|
It probably bears noting that I am considered fairly right-wing (ZombieNeighbours is to the left of me, I get the impression) in the UK (though it connotes slightly different things over here). However, having seen universal healthcare in action, I am somewhat flummoxed by the hostility to the aim that sometimes comes through. While I can understand antipathy to the proposals currently on the table, I am surprised that many seem to consider the idea unattractive. Am I right in that, or is this more coloured by the current debate and bill?
I think that the 10% is unadjusted for inflation.
My problem with what you are...
Right, not adjusted for inflation. Since we can't tell where inflation will be, I didn't account for it. (Oh, wait, the US government is printing money without the attendant productivity to back up that money. Yeah, inflation's going up. WAAAAY up.)
Oh, please don't think that I believe only putting 12.4% into retirement accounts is appropriate. I was using that as an exercise to show that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme of the worst sort. My quick calculation shows that your $400k would provide $1900/month (at a 5% return) for 40 years. That calculates to . . . $22800 per year. Earning $7/hr for his working life, the worker earned . . . $14k/year. So, retire and get a raise. Or go with Social Security and get $8k/year.
No, I personally stash away somewhere between 15 and 20%, in addition to the pension plan my employer provides. If all goes well and Paizo is still in business when I retire, I'll have enough to subscribed to every line they produce.
Am I right in that, or is this more coloured by the current debate and bill?
For myself, it's both. As to your second points (since the first are just about debated to death):
Our Congress is currently attempting to find a way to make the health care bill the law of the land without holding an actual vote on the measure. This is considered bad.
The legislative process to create the bill was held in secret, behind closed doors. This is also bad. Ugly things grow in the dark.
Proposals presented by the minority party have not been allowed to come to the floor for a vote, and then the leaders of Congress say the minority party didn't have any counterproposals. Lying is bad.
Our government does a great job with making things worse. Social Security (our national pension system) is going bankrupt. Our current government-run medical system is going bankrupt. Our government is projected to spend somewhere around $1,000,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000,000 more than it collects in taxes, every year, for the forseeable future. Of our current population, about half the families in the country actually pay taxes. That means that half don't pay, but do use the services, and the current trend shows that this will not get better in the next few decades. This is bad.
Recently, our president proclaimed that if Congress didn't pass a bloated spending bill, unemployment would hit 8%. Well, Congress passed the bill, and unemployment topped 10%. This shows that Congress doesn't really have a clue when it comes to the economic impact of their decisions. For the record, when the people who make laws don't have a clue, yes, this is considered bad.
A good number of voters have said "No." One of our states, long a leftist stronghold, voted for a Republican. That's about as unlikely as Haley's Comet coming around next year. But yet it happened. But our leaders keep not listening to the voters. One of the tenants of our government is that the consent of the governed is required. Congress no longer has the People's consent, but ignores the People. This is also bad.
Does that help you understand the political landscape over here?
No doubt I missed something, but those are the general points, I think.
Oh, and equity in your home is not wealth.
No, equity isn't mentioned.
Allow an example:
My old house didn't have good windows. They were drafty, the wood was rotten, it wasn't a pretty sight.
If I wanted to sell my house with bad windows, people won't want to buy it.
But, if I put in new windows myself, the value of the house goes up. What was once a cold and drafty house now becomes a warmer domicile. Now, you as a buyer might say "I'm not going to pay more just because you put in new windows." But the fact remains that a house with new windows has a greater value than a house with cruddy windows.
|
They have been using procedures and equipment that has been largely developed by us. If we went the way of other governments, I believe that many would be scared that this advancement would slow considerably down.
Well if your concerned about your competativeness in medical developement is your primary concern, perhapes you should consider stripping all ethic requirements from the industry, let them fool around with embrionic stem cells, remove all restrictions on animal and human testing, give them full legal immunity for their actions during developement of drugs and techniques?
My concern is nothing of the sort. And a lot of the other stuff you mentioned (while hot topics) really have nothing to do with my point.
My point is that (for better or worse) the American people have so much more than other countries. To the point where we are spoiled silly. (And I don't see that as necessarily a good thing.) We have the best hospitals. We have the best equipment. We have all this stuff -- but that isn't good enough. It seems to me that the American people want all this stuff for free. They want what we already have with the way that other countries are doing it. No other country has what we have -- but yet we seem to want to pay the same thing that other countries are paying to get it.
I keep hearing things like "well other countries can do it, why can't we?" Because we are not the same as other countries. You cannot apply an inexpensive system and expect expensive results. Yet we do. We want to keep what we have but make the government pay for it without increasing our taxes.
I'm sure that I'm not making my point clear...
8 to 10 years ago we were on an HMO plan. I paid my monthly payment for medical insurance and the insuance company paid for EVERYTHING. Because of this, they encouraged us to see the doctor for anything at any time. If you had a hang-nail, go to the doctor. You scrape your knee, go to the emergency room. Whatever. That was a stupid time. Yet so many Americans still seem to have this mentality. As if they are entitled to be able to see a brain surgeon any time their big toe hurts.
My concern is as much, if not more, with the American people as it is with our government's competency. You cannot expect to be able to keep what we have and pay less for it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Along those lines...
I bought the Hermitage knowing the seals on the windows needed replaced. I included this in my offer, knowing a) I don't worry about cold as much as most humans so it's not a priority, and b) I'll get to them soon enough.
Under various laws proposed, the seller would have been required to fix the windows prior to selling the house, thus increasing her asking price, and decreasing my wanting it.
For Health Care, the legislation is the same thing. It's a law sticking the government's nose where it doesn't belong in its clearly defined powers, with unintended consequences abounding. Heck, Speaker Pelosi has already said the wonders of the bill will be I can quit my job and become a struggling writer without losing my insurance. Why should someone else pay for my stupid choice? More importatnly if we all quit and become writers, who's going to pay the bills?
Not to mention the arguement "We need to pass this bill to see what's in it." Really? So you won't let me see the ingredients before I pay for the crap sandwich? What business model works like this?
Again, reason I'm not a politician. I'd make every bill be read on the floor, just to get the point across.
Zombieneighbours, the title of this thread involved your mental block. I think we've discovered your mental block. It has to do with the ownership of your skill, ability, and that which you produce.
Now, I hold no illusions that some problems are massive, and seem to require a small group of people weilding a big stick to solve those problems. But at the root of the issue is that I have no inheirent right to your stuff. I have no right to force you to sell your RotRL AP to fund my surgery, and you have no right to force me to grow tomatoes for you.
Is there a role for government to play? Yes. But, it comes down to your assumption that it's okay to bully individuals into doing what you want them to do. Is it appropriate at times? Sure, because forcibly removing people from a burning house is usually justified. But there should be very strict limitations on the use of that force. Quite obviously, we disagree as to what those limitations should be.
I have no desire to experience the NHS firsthand. I am quite happy with my private insurance and private doctors. History has shown that governments only muck things up when they decide to get involved.
If you want to learn more, I might suggest you google "Natural Rights." Consider that a charitable contribution to your education. But that's the limit of my charity. I've already wasted enough time discussing why bullying is bad, even if others don't get it.
Now, as I took today off work, I'm going to go prepare a garden. I have tomatoes to grow. And sell. Yes, I intend to use other people's hunger in order to make money. Profit, even.
Obama and the democrats won due to "Change you can believe in", "I am not George Bush" (VERY popular with the American public) and "I am not a republican".
Independents are now shocked and angered to learn that Obama's "change" is not something they want or believe in, that Obama is just like George Bush (IraqWar/ObamaCare despite the public being against it) and democrats are even more corrupt and unethical than the slime-bag republicans they voted out of congress.
Be that as it may, he said, up front, that he wants universal health care. He made it part of his campaign platform, and he won.
By democratic standards (the process, not the party), he has the right and the mandate to try and enact into laws the policies that he campaigned on.
In fact, in those cases where he has waffled on his campaign promises (closing Gitmo, for example) he's been pilloried in the press for not following through on his promises.
If I were him, I'd be pretty f'n confused right now...
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In fact, in those cases where he has waffled on his campaign promises (closing Gitmo, for example) he's been pilloried in the press for not following through on his promises.
If I were him, I'd be pretty f'n confused right now...
Greg
"Barack Obama's campaign promises have expiration dates, all of them."
The problem with Health care, like most campaign promises is that it comes down to which audience he was speaking in front of that day.
Our government is projected to spend somewhere around $1,000,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000,000 more than it collects in taxes, every year, for the forseeable future... One of our states, long a leftist stronghold, voted for a Republican.
Those are solid, cogent points, with which I agree. I'm more cynical than you, though, insofar as I fail to see where either party is fiscally conservative in any manner. Drastically outspending tax dollars has been the preferred modus operandus for all U.S. politicians for more than a decade, and doesn't seem like it will change anytime soon. The Democratic platform, as near as I can tell, is "Spend like crazy so as to be an overprotectively smothering nanny to all." The problem is that voting Republican isn't necessarily a fix; that party's platform seems to have become "Spend like crazy in order to enforce our interpretation of end-times Biblical mandates on all." And of course we have well-meaning Libertarian stances, like, "All taxes are bad; roads become magically self-repairing if you shoot enough immigrants."
|
|
Obama and the democrats won due to "Change you can believe in", "I am not George Bush" (VERY popular with the American public) and "I am not a republican".
Independents are now shocked and angered to learn that Obama's "change" is not something they want or believe in, that Obama is just like George Bush (IraqWar/ObamaCare despite the public being against it) and democrats are even more corrupt and unethical than the slime-bag republicans they voted out of congress.
Be that as it may, he said, up front, that he wants universal health care. He made it part of his campaign platform, and he won.
By democratic standards (the process, not the party), he has the right and the mandate to try and enact into laws the policies that he campaigned on.
In fact, in those cases where he has waffled on his campaign promises (closing Gitmo, for example) he's been pilloried in the press for not following through on his promises.
If I were him, I'd be pretty f'n confused right now...
Greg
You need to remember that he doesn't really have any power. Congress does. To pass healthcare bills he needs to buy votes from people that suddenly aren't behind him to give him the votes needed. Senator X needs amendment Y added to the bill to provide $20mil in tax breaks to his personal special interest group. Meanwhile Legislator B needs to save face with his public because he hasn't followed through on campaign promises so add in a special bit of love to his state's A program.
US politics suck. Nothing is a straightforward bill anymore. Special interest groups own our laws. Every politician is an abject failure to the public unless they don't do the disgusting stuff, then they are just an ineffectual joke that has no power.
The whole conservative argument falls down for me around the meaning of the word "earn." The funniest part about people think the liberals want to take their money? Their money has already been taken (and then some) by a system that inordinately rewards wealth (ownership of capital) over labor. There was never an equitable distribution to begin with! (Hint: no one can personally "earn" a hundred billion dollars; the very thought defies reason). The notion that the wealth distribution correlates strongly with labor or ability is just plain wrong. Just ask Paris Hilton.
Instead of rewarding capitalists who play games with other people's money and lives (generally with little or no personal consequences), how about we structure our economy to reward the people who produce the goods and services? How about we reward effort and ability, rather than wealth?
And just to head some of you off: I don't think it's ok to "steal" from the super wealthly just because they have the most, or because I'm jealous (though I am jealous). Rather, I'm singling them out as the pinnacle of unfair because pretty much all of them got where they are on the backs of others, including (especially?) members of the lower socioeconomic classes (who, amusingly, skew conservative). What I find particularly incomprehensible is how many people have been hoodwinked into angrily defending their own exploitation.
Edit: The "tomato analogy" would be much more accurate if we include the part where you forced your neighbor to grow your tomatoes for you. Not at gunpoint, of course; oh no. Rather, because his only other choice was to exercise his "freedom" to starve (as you inherited all the land...that's fair, right?). Oh, and the part where you gave him only enough of what *he* grew to survive (and, conveniently, to ensure he'd be planting your tomatoes for the rest of his life).
Our government is projected to spend somewhere around $1,000,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000,000 more than it collects in taxes, every year, for the forseeable future... One of our states, long a leftist stronghold, voted for a Republican.Those are solid, cogent points, with which I agree. I'm more cynical than you, though, insofar as I fail to see where either party is fiscally conservative in any manner. Drastically outspending tax dollars has been the preferred modus operandus for all U.S. politicians for more than a decade, and doesn't seem like it will change anytime soon. The Democratic platform, as near as I can tell, is "Spend like crazy so as to be an overprotectively smothering nanny to all." The problem is that voting Republican isn't necessarily a fix; that party's platform seems to have become "Spend like crazy in order to enforce our interpretation of end-times Biblical mandates on all." And of course we have well-meaning Libertarian stances, like, "All taxes are bad; roads become magically self-repairing if you shoot enough immigrants."
I don't disagree about the Republicans. Although most don't have the "Biblical mandate" thing going. After all, the Catholic Church is one of the larger left-leaning organizations. Lots of Democrats profess Catholicism.
However, Libertarians tend to be pro-immigration. Not all, but it is a tendency.
Okay, back to looking over Kingmaker (finally got the download! Woot!).
Glad that we've returned to civil discourse. Not all tea party people are anarchists, and despite the derogatory term tea baggers, the party only arose to the fear of EXCESSIVE gov't spending. Also, not all coffee party people are communists. And tomatoes are just tomatoes when they're not being thrown at each other.
Amazing what understanding can arise when we remove our colored lenses.
Cheers!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Those are solid, cogent points, with which I agree. I'm more cynical than you, though, insofar as I fail to see where either party is fiscally conservative in any manner. Drastically outspending tax dollars has been the preferred modus operandus for all U.S. politicians for more than a decade, and doesn't seem like it will change anytime soon.
I won't get into the last part, but I will hit on this.
If the Democrats lose seats in the house and senate, it's not because of the Republican skill in getting their message across. It's because the Democrats self destruction.
"Barack Obama's campaign promises have expiration dates, all of them."
I'm curious as to where that quote comes from - and the subtext. Like any politician, his promises expire formally when the next guy is sworn into office. But I'm being literal. I'm assuming that's not what you meant.
The problem with Health care, like most campaign promises is that it comes down to which audience he was speaking in front of that day.
If it were only mentioned once, and never, ever refered to again, I can see where you are coming from. But I got that link from a Google search of "obama health care reform campaign". It was link #2. And its on barackobama.com, his official campaign web site.
Not exactly hidden and buried.
Greg
<SNIP>I fail to see where either party is fiscally conservative in any manner. Drastically outspending tax dollars has been the preferred modus operandus for all U.S. politicians for more than a decade, and doesn't seem like it will change anytime soon</SNIP>
Bingo.
...If the Democrats lose seats in the house and senate, it's not because of the Republican skill in getting their message across. It's because the Democrats self destruction.
The Democratic Party is similar to the Miami Dolphins... they are their own worst enemy. :)
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable... I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.
...having seen universal healthcare in action, I am somewhat flummoxed by the hostility to the aim that sometimes comes through. While I can understand antipathy to the proposals currently on the table, I am surprised that many seem to consider the idea unattractive. Am I right in that, or is this more coloured by the current debate and bill?
The current debate/bill underscores the problem with trusting government to run healthcare. So far Americans have seen:
1. the government bribing senators and representatives to vote for the healthcare bill2. the government giving deals to special interests
3. the government preparing to use legislative tricks because they can't pass the bill without them
4. the government creating/modifying 2000+ page bills behind closed doors so that the public will have little time to read them before they are voted on
5. the government saying they will explain what's in the bill once it passes
6. the government lying to the American public
7. the government not caring about what the American public wants
add to that a few other things we've seen in the last year...
8. the stimulus bill had to be passed immediately (without even reading the bill) to prevent unemployment going above 8% - unemployment broke 10%, showing the government does not understand economics (or back to #6)
9. this year Social Security will be paying out more money than it takes in - unfortunately, the government has already spent all the money in the SS trust fund leaving only IOUs
10. the government isn't concerned about deficit spending and the economic impact of our national debt
Now, taking all this into account, why would anyone want the government to control their healthcare?
...If the Democrats lose seats in the house and senate, it's not because of the Republican skill in getting their message across. It's because the Democrats self destruction.The Democratic Party is similar to the Miami Dolphins... they are their own worst enemy. :)
You can say the same thing about the Republicans. It seems to me that as soon as one party gets complete control over both congress and the presidency, they self-destruct. History shows us that the country is usually better off when both parties share power.
You can say the same thing about the Republicans. It seems to me that as soon as one party gets complete control over both congress and the presidency, they self-destruct. History shows us that the country is always better off when both parties share power.
Agreed.
You need to remember that he doesn't really have any power. Congress does.
Well, I would suggest that they each have ~1/3 of the power. He does have Presidential veto, does he not? (I'm no student of the American political system so feel free to correct me.)
To pass healthcare bills he needs to buy votes from people that suddenly aren't behind him to give him the votes needed.
Yeah, I realise that. But that's not the problem I'm seeing.
I'm trying to address the facts that:
- 1: he openly campaigned on universal health care reform;
- 2: he won the frickken' election; so
- 3: why is everyone so shocked and surprised and calling him a communist for trying to do what the people voted him in to office to do?
My understanding about democracy is that while you may not agree with everything the candidate says, by voting for him/her you are giving that person the mandate to work to acheiving those things he/she campaigned on.
Obama campaigned on universal health care reform. He was voted in. By my logic, that means that the people of the US have given tacit approval to health care reform.
Now, if he never mentioned it once, then fine. I can understand the uproar. But he said he was gonna do it. What did everyone expect?
Greg
@GregH:
The funny part is Obama is neither socialist nor communist; he's pretty much a textbook Keynesian. Do the people leveling these charges even bother to look up the words they're using?
Obama campaigned on universal health care reform. He was voted in. By my logic, that means that the people of the US have given tacit approval to health care reform.
Except he did not campaign on universal health care. While it was a PART of his platform, it wasn't the major theme of his campaign speeches. Change was his major theme. And after 8 years of Bush, people wanted change.
Interestingly, Scott Brown did make health care a major part of his campaign and shocked the democratic leadership by winning in heavily democratic Massachusetts. Combined with the results of national polling, one would think democrats would realize that Americans don't want this health care reform plan.
You can say the same thing about the Republicans. It seems to me that as soon as one party gets complete control over both congress and the presidency, they self-destruct. History shows us that the country is always better off when both parties share power.Agreed.
I'm sick of all of them, bought and paid for by big corps and lobbyists. F*ck 'em. I'm voting against every incumbent in 2010.