RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sure wish people would let the name SP fade, instead of using her as a rallying cry. It really diminishes the points.
On any side of an argument you can find extreme examples, such as the BS with Fortis. To counter the death panel rebuttal example of your aunt, rest her soul, I offer that of my cousin. Same diagnosis, but not dropped from his insurer in the current system. We pray for a miracle. So the real life examples oppose each other, HIV versus my cousin's cancer.
Yep, insurers pull all kinds of asshattery. Will that change? Nope. Either corporate profits will motivate them or personal greed/corruption. I have no faith in bureaucrats. Sad, but that's the way I feel. Americanized NHS or private.
Agreed, I don't pretend my side is all angels, but nor are they evil incarnate.
I'm sorry to hear about your cousin.
Saw this on Good Morning America this morning.
This doesn't really surprise me. I may be a bit cynical or biased ... because I used to work as a benefits analyst in the early '90s for them.
Agreed, I don't pretend my side is all angels, but nor are they evil incarnate.
I'm sorry to hear about your cousin.
My feeling as well, thoughI didn't articulate it as well. I likely overreacted to the burning torch and pitchfork rallying cry. ;)
Yep, 'tis stressful times these days in my family. My current (hopefully temporary) problems and Rick's diagnosis. He's only 52. Still, our current system is doing right by us both. Not perfect, but all right given the circumstances. Thanks.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Agreed, I don't pretend my side is all angels, but nor are they evil incarnate.
I'm sorry to hear about your cousin.
My feeling as well, thoughI didn't articulate it as well. I likely overreacted to the burning torch and pitchfork rallying cry. ;)
Yep, 'tis stressful times these days in my family. My current (hopefully temporary) problems and Rick's diagnosis. He's only 52. Still, our current system is doing right by us both. Not perfect, but all right given the circumstances. Thanks.
Is he on the drug cocktail? Is it HIV 3? I'm afraid my knowlege of HIV treatments are a few years out of date. Cancer's been the larger focus of late in my own life.
Is he on the drug cocktail? Is it HIV 3? I'm afraid my knowlege of HIV treatments are a few years out of date. Cancer's been the larger focus of late in my own life.
Agreed, I don't pretend my side is all angels, but nor are they evil incarnate.
I'm sorry to hear about your cousin.
My feeling as well, thoughI didn't articulate it as well. I likely overreacted to the burning torch and pitchfork rallying cry. ;)
Yep, 'tis stressful times these days in my family. My current (hopefully temporary) problems and Rick's diagnosis. He's only 52. Still, our current system is doing right by us both. Not perfect, but all right given the circumstances. Thanks.
No HIV, pancreatic cancer And not abandoned by his private insurer as was posited in the post that inflamed me.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No HIV, pancreatic cancer And not abandoned by his private insurer as was posited in the post that inflamed me.
Ah, I misunderstood. Damn. I know there's some work with (adult) stem cells to build a pancreas, but that's still experimental. Was once asked by middle management why I knew so much about some medical procedures. I told him, "I work at an insurance company, talk to people with health issues all day, and read medical journals between calls. Why do you think I know so much?"
Reason number 347 why I wouldn't make good management, lack of tact. :-)
If you are intractably set that the provision of universal healthcare breaks 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', because it 'forces' people to pay.
Why is it that it is moral to break the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'to provide a military and a justice system.
In the US context I believe this question addresses two primary issue.
First is the constitutional role of the federal government. Military defense is clearly enumerated as one of those functions though our founders would balk at the current train wreck, I think.
Second is the odious nature of income taxes and our tax structure in general. Income tax (and in some degree payroll tax) is particularly bad because it is a direct tax on labor etc. which is akin to serfdom. It also punishes savings and investment which in turn drives more people onto the government's welfare roles.
The reason I give when I say I'm opposed to public healthcare, was pretty much summed up by Ryan Sohmer this morning:
Of course, when I say stuff like that I'm only crudely fishing for reactions, but still...
If you are intractably set that the provision of universal healthcare breaks 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', because it 'forces' people to pay.
Why is it that it is moral to break the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'to provide a military and a justice system.In the US context I believe this question addresses two primary issue.
First is the constitutional role of the federal government. Military defense is clearly enumerated as one of those functions though our founders would balk at the current train wreck, I think.
So you are willing to agree that there are exceptions that to the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'.
If the constitution was ammended to contain the provision of healthcare, under that founding principle of 'provide provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'.Would it then be acceptable?
It is the fact that Doug's Workshop seems unwilling to discuss why he considers one to be a violation of his freedom/'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', and the other not, that is so gauling.
Second is the odious nature of income taxes and our tax structure in general. Income tax (and in some degree payroll tax) is particularly bad because it is a direct tax on labor etc. which is akin to serfdom. It also punishes savings and investment which in turn drives more people onto the government's welfare roles.
The exact form of that taxation takes is something that i am sure we could discuss. I have no special attachment too.
But you i hope understand that i am not forced to pay tax for my healthcare. If i disagree with paying it, i can simply move to a country that does not charge tax for it.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So you are willing to agree that there are exceptions that to the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'.
If the constitution was ammended to contain the provision of healthcare, under that founding principle of 'provide provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'.Would it then be acceptable?
I'd grumble, but that would be acceptable. Heck, I disagree with the concept of Prohibition, but it was the law of the land for a while.
I was just making the arguement eleswhere (where someone compared Romney to Stalin, so you can imagine how stable his worldview was) that a state can set up whatever healthcare they choose, and that's fine. It's the federal government that doesn't have it in their enumerated powers.
Seems that large parts of the Catholic church in the US are also for health care reform.
Article
Seems that large parts of the Catholic church in the US are also for health care reform.
Article
Yes, but one of their main issues, which is being led by Bart Stupak of Michigan and his 'group of 12' happens to deal with federal funding of abortions (they want to ban it from the bill).
Yes, but one of their main issues, which is being led by Bart Stupak of Michigan and his 'group of 12' happens to deal with federal funding of abortions (they want to ban it from the bill).Seems that large parts of the Catholic church in the US are also for health care reform.
Article
Well, according to the article, federal funding of abortion isn't IN the bill at all.
Sadly, from what I understand, I am unqualified for entry. Good call though! :DWell, there was that Rapture place...(b) try and live somewhere without taxes (and good luck finding such a place!).
It's all right, from what I hear the place has gone down hill anyway. I blame all the illegal immigrants… well… the illegal immigrants who shoot bees from their hands at least.
|
They want the American people to swallow this huge health care bill that most if not all haven't even read in it's entirety...
However last year when I was unemployed, couldn't find a job to save my but and they were going to repo my truck. If some suite from the government had shown up and told me that I was now being fined...
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don’t believe Australia has close to 15 to 20 million ILLEGAL money sucking, quasi-illiterate immigrants...They don’t pay taxes into our system because they have 19 kids to support back in Mexico or whatever south of the border drug infested cartel of a nation they come from and yet they want to receive the full benefits of living here. They want to get social security, have...
1) Why not read it? It's no bigger than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I doubt you'd be on this website if you hadn't. I mean, after all, we swallowed the Patriot Act (most of us without reading it) and that was twice as big.
2-A) Did you need surgery while unemployed? I did. Cost me $10,000 dollars. If there'd been a public option, I would have happy to eat ramen and live out of my car in exchange.
2-B) If you had read the health care bill instead of explaining that it was too big to read, you'd note that there are provisions in there for the unemployed, thus nullifying this argument.
3) Illegal immigrants, in order to get those jobs to send money home, need to use a social security number or get paid under the table. If they are paid under the table, the crime is being committed not by an immigrant, but by the legal citizen who is cheating the system. If they ARE using a social security number and are not a citizen, then they are thus enrolled in a system where they A) pay income, social security, and medicare taxes, and B) cannot reap the benefits when they retire.
The massive amounts of illegal aliens who are paying into the system, yet can't get money out of it are huge reason why social security hasn't already collapsed.
And you know what they buy with the money they do make? American products. That's right, the money goes right back into the hands Americans, who think it just fine to spend a trillion dollars a year on bloated military technology (though not on troops and vets), but that free MRI's for unemployed people is socialism.
|
|
There's no direct bearing on the specifics under discussion, but I really enjoy the radio show This American Life, and they had a couple of very interesting shows on the American Health Care System:
Health Care Shows:
More is Less
Someone Else's Money
They also did some good ones on the housing crisis, turned economic crisis over the last year or so.
You can listen to these shows streaming on the intarwebs. :)
|
Second is the odious nature of income taxes and our tax structure in general. Income tax (and in some degree payroll tax) is particularly bad because it is a direct tax on labor etc. which is akin to serfdom. It also punishes savings and investment which in turn drives more people onto the government's welfare roles.
Income tax does indeed have issues - namely that it (technically) distorts the incentive to earn an income. (It's the capital gains tax that distorts savings/investment incentives). However, those distortions are probably overstated by anti-tax activists - the income motivation is pretty strong.
Moreover, work-related taxes are not "akin to serfdom," or equivalent to slavery (as argued by an earlier poster). Those taxes are only due if you work, and no one is forced (under penalty of law) to work.
The "welfare queen" argument is likewise a straw man. A quick google search suggests that ~2% of the U.S. population receives WIC-type welfare assistance. I suspect (but have no evidence) that the vast majority of those people are single parents with children who can't afford childcare, were they to work. Most of them could still not afford childcare even if you were to give them their income taxes back - in my neck of the woods, infant care is $200-225 per week, per infant. Young children are somewhat less ($100-200?).
Most important, however, the income tax is (slightly) progressive where frequently suggested replacements are regressive. It is appropriate for higher income/asset persons to pay a large proportion of their pre-tax income/assets because (1) a smaller proportion of their wealth goes to pay for necessities, (2) the relative value (not cost) of the services they receive tends to be greater, and more pragmatically, (3) they can afford to pay it.
It is the fact that Doug's Workshop seems unwilling to discuss why he considers one to be a violation of his freedom/'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', and the other not, that is so gauling.
You'll have to direct me to the part where I agreed that you should be forced to pay for the military. If you read my blog about this time last year, you would see that I decided my tax bill went to buy 12,000 7.62mm NATO sniper rounds. Nothing said you should do the same.
Now, the police? Well, if we don't have the police, then the guy with the biggest stick gets what he wants. Granted, that's what happens under your system anyways, so I guess I can understand your attraction to this mode of governing.
Taxes can be voluntary; there has been at least two proposals put forth in the US Congress to do just that. So, I reject your "I choose to pay taxes" argument. If you don't pay taxes, you'll go to jail. Or maybe Great Britain has other laws that I don't know about. Here, you don't have a choice. You use your labor to provide for your family, government gets a cut. Even the Mafia is scared of the revenue agents.
Now, if you still think that you have the right to take money from me to pay for your health care, I invite you to do just that. Certainly, I couldn't possibly stop you if you have a Natural Right to my labor. I can't stop you from engaging in your Natural Right to speech and expression, and eliminating your Natural Right to self defense only means you will exercise that right; please attempt to use your right to my income to provide for your health care. This isn't me being snarky. It's an attempt to prove to you that you have no inheirent right to my property.
Moreover, work-related taxes are not "akin to serfdom," or equivalent to slavery (as argued by an earlier poster). Those taxes are only due if you work, and no one is forced (under penalty of law) to work.
Well, if I am to eat, I have to do something, whether that be grow my own food or pay someone else to grow it for me. Upon working (because a purely tomato-based diet isn't the best), an income tax takes money from me.
I suppose that if one wanted to starve to death while dressed in rags and living under a bridge, yes, no one is forced to work. And while you may argue that someone could provide charity, that charity would technically be called income, which would then be taxed.
Well, according to the article, federal funding of abortion isn't IN the bill at all.Yes, but one of their main issues, which is being led by Bart Stupak of Michigan and his 'group of 12' happens to deal with federal funding of abortions (they want to ban it from the bill).Seems that large parts of the Catholic church in the US are also for health care reform.
Article
Odd, since that was one of the main issues they were talking about in the national news this morning on television. Oh, who or what to believe when the media has their deceptive webs to weave. ;)
It is the fact that Doug's Workshop seems unwilling to discuss why he considers one to be a violation of his freedom/'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', and the other not, that is so gauling.
You'll have to direct me to the part where I agreed that you should be forced to pay for the military. If you read my blog about this time last year, you would see that I decided my tax bill went to buy 12,000 7.62mm NATO sniper rounds. Nothing said you should do the same.
Now, the police? Well, if we don't have the police, then the guy with the biggest stick gets what he wants. Granted, that's what happens under your system anyways, so I guess I can understand your attraction to this mode of governing.
Taxes can be voluntary; there has been at least two proposals put forth in the US Congress to do just that. So, I reject your "I choose to pay taxes" argument. If you don't pay taxes, you'll go to jail. Or maybe Great Britain has other laws that I don't know about. Here, you don't have a choice. You use your labor to provide for your family, government gets a cut. Even the Mafia is scared of the revenue agents.
Now, if you still think that you have the right to take money from me to pay for your health care, I invite you to do just that. Certainly, I couldn't possibly stop you if you have a Natural Right to my labor. I can't stop you from engaging in your Natural Right to speech and expression, and eliminating your Natural Right to self defense only means you will exercise that right; please attempt to use your right to my income to provide for your health care. This isn't me being snarky. It's an attempt to prove to you that you have no inheirent right to my property.
You are ignoring the fact that your argument against tax-supported health care works the same against tax-supported police or armed forces. Saying that "police is important" does not help you evade this problem, since it is a question of personal priorities, which can vary. Let`s say that you found police to be unimportant; can you decide not to pay for it ? Or is the state going to "steal your money" no matter what ?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Odd, since that was one of the main issues they were talking about in the national news this morning on television. Oh, who or what to believe when the media has their deceptive webs to weave. ;)Well, according to the article, federal funding of abortion isn't IN the bill at all.Yes, but one of their main issues, which is being led by Bart Stupak of Michigan and his 'group of 12' happens to deal with federal funding of abortions (they want to ban it from the bill).Seems that large parts of the Catholic church in the US are also for health care reform.
Article
It's my understanding that what keeps the Fed out of people's wombs is the Hyde ammendment. the Stupak ammendment in the house cemented the language into the heart of the bill, as opposed to being renewed every year.
Odd, since that was one of the main issues they were talking about in the national news this morning on television. Oh, who or what to believe when the media has their deceptive webs to weave. ;)Well, according to the article, federal funding of abortion isn't IN the bill at all.Yes, but one of their main issues, which is being led by Bart Stupak of Michigan and his 'group of 12' happens to deal with federal funding of abortions (they want to ban it from the bill).Seems that large parts of the Catholic church in the US are also for health care reform.
Article
+1
And a major point of contention between the House and Senate versions, note the plural, hence the talks of pass-thru voting.
|
|
You are ignoring the fact that your argument against tax-supported health care works the same against tax-supported police or armed forces. Saying that "police is important" does not help you evade this problem, since it is a question of personal priorities, which can vary. Let`s say that you found police to be unimportant; can you decide not to pay for it ? Or is the state going to "steal your money" no matter what ?
It comes down to playing games on what people think they perceive as a "right" in the US. There is a practical and constitutionally backed reason for the US to maintain a standing army (Art I-Sec 8) - that is to protect the citizenry and the interests of the US. One can argue that if you do not like the taxes levied in one city, county state, etc which goes towards maintaining a police force you can always leave, or move to an area where the taxes to maintain such services are not as high or nonexistent. That isn't the case with this current debacle, as it's currently being set up this is inescapable and if Americans have any kind of sense they will let the states put the sauce to the federal govt and shut this down.
There is nothing in the Constitution which supports this criminal takeover of private enterprise - nor the power of the gub'ment to penalize people for not participating in a program (forced purchase of healthcare). This is unconstitutional, plain and simple. People can try to spin it, create equivalencies, play the hardship card - it doesn't change the fact that it's illegal, destruction of private enterprise, theft of private property/wealth and of course unconstitutional.
You are ignoring the fact that your argument against tax-supported health care works the same against tax-supported police or armed forces.
If you're okay with vigilantes determining who should get punished for crimes, then I'm all for allowing police to be funded by a voluntary contribution. Of course, then the rule of law goes right out the window.
Police serve the purpose of ensuring the rule of law. That means, in part, ensuring that your rights are protected, as are mine. Again, if you wish to do away with those provisions, we might as well start up our own River Kingdoms (yes, I've been reading my downloads).
My rights are protected as equally by the police as your rights are. Neither one of us gets more rights than the other. However, taking my property (by force) to fund your health care means my rights are not protected. There was no due process involved, there was simple theft. My labor, my property, is deemed to be in fact owned by another, circumventing my Natural Rights to my property.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a third party has an inheirent right to my property.
Incidentally, since I favor voluntary taxation (as in a consumption tax), there still wouldn't be anyone forced to pay for the police.
I noticed in one of the way earlier posts (before I stopped reading, there are lots of pages here) that someone said that the post office was poorly run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
Really. The postal service is one of the most efficient governmental services in the world. Anecdotal evidence aside (and in a nation this large, there will be some), do you really think that it is reasonable to expect to drop a piece of paper in a bin and know that it will, in the ridiculously vast majority of cases, end up where it is supposed to? Nobody is perfect, no service is, but the USPS is one of the most efficient, cost-effective, and reliable agencies the world has ever seen. The take no direct tax dollars, have scorn heaped upon them by the public, have to drive on the wrong side of the vehicle, and have managed to increase their effectiveness year after year.
No, I don't work for the USPS, never have, and yeah, they make mistakes too. Sure, if you want something delivered tomorrow you would be wise to go to FedEx or UPS (and pay a huge premium to do so!). Still, it is not cool to dig on the Postal Service. The vast majority of Postal Workers are courteous (to the limits of their considerable tolerance) professionals who deal with mind-numbing drudgery 6 days a week (it would be 7 if certain segments of society hadn't messed that up). Please give them the respect they are due.
The vast majority of Postal Workers are courteous (to the limits of their considerable tolerance) professionals who deal with mind-numbing drudgery 6 days a week (it would be 7 if certain segments of society hadn't messed that up). Please give them the respect they are due.
Soon it is likely to be 5 days due to budget issues.
My rights are protected as equally by the police as your rights are. Neither one of us gets more rights than the other. However, taking my property (by force) to fund your health care means my rights are not protected. There was no due process involved, there was simple theft. My labor, my property, is deemed to be in fact owned by another, circumventing my Natural Rights to my property.
Your right to health care is also equal to mine should we both live in a country with tax-funded health care.
Again, the fact that you consider police work important has no implication on the question of whether taxing to provide public service is theft or not. For instance:"Taking my property (by force) to fund your protection means my rights are not protected."
is an equivalent statement. If you abandon the position that taxation is theft, you can argue for the merits of police funding in lieu of health funding, for instance. If, however, you consider taxation theft, it is as much theft when the "stolen" money goes to the police as to when it goes to health care, or anything else, for that matter.
|
|
Your right to health care is also equal to mine should we both live in a country with tax-funded health care.
Again, the fact that you consider police work important has no implication on the question of whether taxing to provide public service is theft or not. For instance:
"Taking my property (by force) to fund your protection means my rights are not protected."
is an equivalent statement. If you abandon the position that taxation is theft, you can argue for the merits of police funding in lieu of health funding, for instance. If, however, you consider taxation theft, it is as much theft when the "stolen" money goes to the police as to when it goes to health care, or anything else, for that matter.
No, it is not an equivalent statement.
Laws exist and they are enforced by police. There is no equivalent when it comes to healthcare. We have written the laws, and the laws must both be upheld and protected by our reps in govt. The police are an extension of that process.Using that kind of absurd logic people will argue the right to own a computer, internet access, money to gamble, ipods, cars, etc based solely on need or perceived right (to happiness? lol). None of these are rights provided and protected by the Constitution - not even food or water to live. You cannot be denied these things, but they are not provided by the state.
This is just a process to take something from those who produce to those who do not. Classic redistribution - a gift for a permanent vote. Sure as hell isn't freedom.
Healthcare providers are not slaves to the gov't, mandating and controlling the price they want to charge makes them gov't workers. They provide a SERVICE, that service needs to be paid for and should be priced according to what the market would bear. Otherwise they can (and hopefully will) just walk away.
Well, according to the article, federal funding of abortion isn't IN the bill at all.Yes, but one of their main issues, which is being led by Bart Stupak of Michigan and his 'group of 12' happens to deal with federal funding of abortions (they want to ban it from the bill).Seems that large parts of the Catholic church in the US are also for health care reform.
Article
That depends on how you wish to define "funding". There is not a specific line that says so much money is set aside for abortion.
Money is set aside to be distributed for programs to use.
The Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used to pay for abortions but the only money that it applies to is funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.
This is an annual appropriations amount of roughly 2.2 billion dollars.
However, the Senate bill, not the House one with the Stupak Amendment, does an end around to the Hyde Amendment. In the Senate bill, there is an additional $7 billion for community health centers that would be dedicated funding for five years. This funding would not be a part of the annual appropriations that the Hyde Amendment applies to. It has no restrictions and thus this money would be eligible to be allocated to abortions. Although these centers do not currently provide abortions, this is a five year funding. It will be taken to court and won. They will be required to support abortions.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
However, the Senate bill, not the House one with the Stupak Amendment, does an end around to the Hyde Amendment. In the Senate bill, there is an additional $7 billion for community health centers that would be dedicated funding for five years. This funding would not be a part of the annual appropriations that the Hyde Amendment applies to. It has no restrictions and thus this money would be eligible to be allocated to abortions. Although these centers do not currently provide abortions, this is a five year funding. It will be taken to court and won. They will be required to support abortions.
Thank you for the elaboration.
And BTW, thank you everyone for being civil on this. I know emotions run high.
You'll have to direct me to the part where I agreed that you should be forced to pay for the military. If you read my blog about this time last year, you would see that I decided my tax bill went to buy 12,000 7.62mm NATO sniper rounds. Nothing said you should do the same.
Now, the police? Well, if we don't have the police, then the guy with the biggest stick gets what he wants. Granted, that's what happens under your system anyways, so I guess I can understand your attraction to this mode of governing.
I have no love of the idea of the absence of police force, but putting aside that and your apparent break with reality, let us undertake a thought experiment.
To explore why what your suggesting is nonsense, let us create a fictional state, the state exists only to ensure the rule of law, and provide national defence. It does this via a standing army and a police force. The state is built upon the principle that ‘No man is entitled to the profit of another man’s labour’.
The country is faced with the question of how to pay the standing army and the police.
It cannot not pay them because, to do so violated to principle.
It cannot charge tax, because if you take the money of someone who wishes not to pay, then taking their labor, without their permission. The only way to ensure they pay is to do violence to them.
You can’t take the donation, because the rule of law must apply to all equally. So those who do not pay into fund, are because of the nature of the rule of law, entitled to the protection of the law and the labour of the police. They also benefit incidentally from the army, without contributing.
Taxes can be voluntary; there has been at least two proposals put forth in the US Congress to do just that. So, I reject your "I choose to pay taxes" argument. If you don't pay taxes, you'll go to jail. Or maybe Great Britain has other laws that I don't know about. Here, you don't have a choice. You use your labor to provide for your family, government gets a cut. Even the Mafia is scared of the revenue agents.
If I were to stop paying tax, and continue to live in the United Kingdom, I would be arrested. But I would also be arrested if I tried to eat at a restaurant without paying.
But if I have mo tax debts outstanding, and decide I do not wish to pay UK tax rates any more, I am free to move to a country where I do not have to, such as Somalia or America. Just as if I eat at a restaurant and consider it poor value for money, I do not have return to that restaurant to eat again, and I will suffer no ill effects for making that choice, so long as I have paid my bill.
Taxes are the voluntary paid cost of living in a civil society.
Now, if you still think that you have the right to take money from me to pay for your health care, I invite you to do just that. Certainly, I couldn't possibly stop you if you have a Natural Right to my labor. I can't stop you from engaging in your Natural Right to speech and expression, and eliminating your Natural Right to self defense only means you will exercise that right; please attempt to use your right to my income to provide for your health care. This isn't me being snarky. It's an attempt to prove to you that you have no inheirent right to my property.
Sorry, but even you do not treat this as a natural law, as you support both the maintenance of police force and a military.
Sorry, but even you do not treat this as a natural law, as you support both the maintenance of police force and a military.
I don't wish to speak for anyone else, but I suppose this apparent contradiction would disappear if police were also somehow dictated by natural law? I don't think that's it, though. On the contrary, the logic appears to be, "everyone seems to agree that police are needed, and there's historical and legal precedent for them -- but not everyone agrees that health care is needed, and there's less precedent for that, so there you go." I can sort of understand that reasoning, even if parts of it are founded on premises that I personally might disagree with.
Sorry, but even you do not treat this as a natural law, as you support both the maintenance of police force and a military.I don't wish to speak for anyone else, but I suppose this apparent contradiction would disappear if police were also somehow dictated by natural law? I don't think that's it, though. On the contrary, the logic appears to be, "everyone seems to agree that police are needed, and there's historical and legal precedent for them -- but not everyone agrees that health care is needed, and there's less precedent for that, so there you go." I can sort of understand that reasoning, even if parts of it are founded on premises that I personally might disagree with.
I think I might want to restate or perhaps quantify this a little.
I do not think that I can name any historical nations that survived any length of time without their own armed forces to protect from outside threats or that did not have the benefit of another state offering that protection. I think that any such state will cease to exist sooner or later. Most likely, sooner. However, history is full of states surviving that did not have nationalized healthcare. The former is an absolute necessity to the existence of a state while the latter is not, IMO.
Edit: That is the "natural law" being discussed, I think.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If you're okay with vigilantes determining who should get punished for crimes, then I'm all for allowing police to be funded by a voluntary contribution. Of course, then the rule of law goes right out the window.
Are we talking about Batman or Rorsharch? Because I'm generally okay with a non-Frank Miller Batman style vigilante. But Rorsharch's a little too psycho for my tastes.
I'm generally okay with a non-Frank Miller Batman style vigilante.
I would have figured you for a pro-police kind of guy -- you could give them ponies instead of motorcycles... but, "Quickly, Robin, to the Bat-Pony!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm generally okay with a non-Frank Miller Batman style vigilante.I would have figured you for a pro-police kind of guy -- you could give them ponies instead of motorcycles... but, "Quickly, Robin, to the Bat-Pony!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Naw. I like terror from the night. It keeps the criminal's afraid - particularly the gangs of thugs with baseball bats and other non-firearms that like to trap innocent people in alleyways. My understanding is that they make up 90% of non-supervillian crimes.
|
I'm generally okay with a non-Frank Miller Batman style vigilante.I would have figured you for a pro-police kind of guy -- you could give them ponies instead of motorcycles... but, "Quickly, Robin, to the Bat-Pony!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
There. I linked it for you.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There. I linked it for you.I'm generally okay with a non-Frank Miller Batman style vigilante.I would have figured you for a pro-police kind of guy -- you could give them ponies instead of motorcycles... but, "Quickly, Robin, to the Bat-Pony!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
You're not helping...
|
|
You're not helping...There. I linked it for you.I'm generally okay with a non-Frank Miller Batman style vigilante.I would have figured you for a pro-police kind of guy -- you could give them ponies instead of motorcycles... but, "Quickly, Robin, to the Bat-Pony!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I don't know. Can you think of anything more scary? I know that I wouldn't want to meet one in a dark alley.
Sorry, but even you do not treat this as a natural law, as you support both the maintenance of police force and a military.I don't wish to speak for anyone else, but I suppose this apparent contradiction would disappear if police were also somehow dictated by natural law?
Not every one does agree that police are neccissary, and there are other models of policing and maintenance of rule of law, besides professional police forces, so i doubt 'policing' is a 'natural law'.
I don't think that's it, though. On the contrary, the logic appears to be, "everyone seems to agree that police are needed, and there's historical and legal precedent for them -- but not everyone agrees that health care is needed, and there's less precedent for that, so there you go." I can sort of understand that reasoning, even if parts of it are founded on premises that I personally might disagree with.
That is, i think a reasonable argument for saying, 'I disagree with nationalised health services'. I wouldn't agree that it is however representative of Doug's position as writen. He has stated he believes that it is fundimentally wrong, and based his argument on the fact it controvines the now oft times repeated natural law.
If he really considers it to be a natural law, he should have the courage of his convictions, and regect policing and the military.
If however, he believes that their are exceptions, such as for the military in america, then he should drop the fundimentally wrong angle and start making coherant argument.
Thats really all I am after at this stage, as i have dealt with more 'blind faith' and ignoring of reality form doug, than your average creationist message board.
No, it is not an equivalent statement.
Laws exist and they are enforced by police. There is no equivalent when it comes to healthcare. We have written the laws, and the laws must both be upheld and protected by our reps in govt. The police are an extension of that process.
Using that kind of absurd logic people will argue the right to own a computer, internet access, money to gamble, ipods, cars, etc based solely on need or perceived right (to happiness? lol). None of these are rights provided and protected by the Constitution - not even food or water to live. You cannot be denied these things, but they are not provided by the state.
This is just a process to take something from those who produce to those who do not. Classic redistribution - a gift for a permanent vote. Sure as hell isn't freedom.Healthcare providers are not slaves to the gov't, mandating and controlling the price they want to charge makes them gov't workers. They provide a SERVICE, that service needs to be paid for and should be priced according to what the market would bear. Otherwise they can (and hopefully will) just walk away.
This is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point in question is whether or not obligatory taxes are theft. If they are considered theft, they are as much theft for paying for police, firefighters and roads as they are for paying whathever else. The use of the "stolen" money (e.g. using it to enforce the constitution) is inconsequential to decide whether it was stolen or not.
Oh, and more. Are the "right to have roads" or "right to have firefighters" on the american constitution as well ? Are these public services privately owned in US ?
|
|
This is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point in question is whether or not obligatory taxes are theft. If they are considered theft, they are as much theft for paying for police, firefighters and roads as they are for paying whathever else. The use of the "stolen" money (e.g. using it to enforce the constitution) is inconsequential to decide whether it was stolen or not.
Oh, and more. Are the "right to have roads" or "right to have firefighters" on the american constitution as well ? Are these public services privately owned in US ?
How is it irrelevant to the point at hand? We are discussing the use of tax money and powers of the gov't?
It is NOT STOLEN MONEY. The constitution does detail the power of the gov't to levy taxes to pay for things detailed ...wait for it,..... in the Constitution. If you can't get past that point then this conversation is over.Police, roads, etc are LOCAL GOV'T issues. They are in some cases detailed in the individuals State Constitution. This is an agreement with the State, and the citizens of the State. If you do not like a law or rule or level of taxation in a State, you could move to another State, you follow? So there exists an agreement on the level of the States and their citizens. If an individual State wanted to have a mandatory State healthcare system that would be different. We do have that already, and it’s a flop. So in that instance I could choose to stay, move to another state and not be forced to pay wherever I live in the country.
You guys are lumping many things together which should not be together. Police, roads...yeah, they are funded through taxation. But it’s on a local level. You can pay, fight to reduce or eliminate services as you see fit. So the whole road/police argument is smoke. If a city or country wants to expand its infrastructure with increased development (roads, more police) most of that is either listed in a city charter or detailed in the State Constitution. Ultimately taxes levied are an agreement between the citizens and their State, county, city, etc to higher or fire police, build roads, etc. The gov't is just the manager in these instances, or should be.
The US Constitution does cover the creation and use of a military, funding for war, etc. It's there, healthcare is not. It is not a Federal mandate, unless you extend or expand the definition of "General Welfare".
This is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point in question is whether or not obligatory taxes are theft. If they are considered theft, they are as much theft for paying for police, firefighters and roads as they are for paying whathever else. The use of the "stolen" money (e.g. using it to enforce the constitution) is inconsequential to decide whether it was stolen or not.
Oh, and more. Are the "right to have roads" or "right to have firefighters" on the american constitution as well ? Are these public services privately owned in US ?
How is it irrelevant to the point at hand? We are discussing the use of tax money and powers of the gov't?
It is NOT STOLEN MONEY. The constitution does detail the power of the gov't to levy taxes to pay for things detailed ...wait for it,..... in the Constitution. If you can't get past that point then this conversation is over.
Police, roads, etc are LOCAL GOV'T issues. They are in some cases detailed in the individuals State Constitution. This is an agreement with the State, and the citizens of the State. If you do not like a law or rule or level of taxation in a State, you could move to another State, you follow? So there exists an agreement on the level of the States and their citizens. If an individual State wanted to have a mandatory State healthcare system that would be different. We do have that already, and it’s a flop. So in that instance I could choose to stay, move to another state and not be forced to pay wherever I live in the country.
You guys are lumping many things together which should not be together. Police, roads...yeah, they are funded through taxation. But it’s on a local level. You can pay, fight to reduce or eliminate services as you see fit. So the whole road/police argument is smoke. If a city or country wants to expand its infrastructure with increased development (roads, more police) most of that is either listed in a city charter or detailed in the State Constitution. Ultimately taxes levied are an...
Dude, first of all chill out. Your aggressiveness is not cute and I don't think you need this to drive your point.
Now, reread how this partiular discussion started (in particular, some of Doug's Workshop posts). I agree with you, tax money is not stolen money. The point discussed was whether "taxing is theft" was a good argument against public health care. Since you agree that taxing is not theft, you agree this is not a good argument. Of course you can have lots of other arguments against a public health care system. However, merely saying "the state is taking my money at gun point" does not work.
If an individual State wanted to have a mandatory State healthcare system that would be different. We do have that already, and it’s a flop.
Universal health care exists in Massachusetts, and is really not a flop there. Can you be more specific about where you think it exists and fails at the state level? Or were you just making stuff up to suit your argument?
To address an earlier point in the thread - Sarah Palin has claimed that she went to Canada for health care, despite living in Alaska. So there is at least one example of someone choosing a non-US health care system, instead of what is supposedly the "best" system in the world.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh, and more. Are the "right to have roads" or "right to have firefighters" on the american constitution as well ? Are these public services privately owned in US ?
Just replying to this.
Actually there's no 'right to roads' there's the right to be free, and roads are clearly defined as an enumerated power of the Federal government. There's no 'right to firemen' either, but there's no federal fire department. There are local fire departments. Both volunteer and paid.
Alas, it has nothing to do with the support from the AMA, but everything to do with filibusters and hold-ups in the House and Senate.
That link is back to November of '09. And in that article, it said that it would most likely be voted on that weekend. Is this in place yet? So what changed between then and now?Again, I'm not entirely sure what all is involved or what is going on, but the longer this goes on, the more likely things in the document will change before it gets finalized.
Certainly more than once, a bill or document has been submitted with some other bit that may or may not necessarily be related and then it gets pushed through knowing full well that it shouldn't pass, and then it doesn't at some point -- sometimes as high as the president -- but then the representatives and/or senators can claim "but I tried to get this through" or whatever.
Here's my take on it --
We will get what we ask for -- for better or worse.
We wanted it easier to be qualified to buy a home. And we got it. Not only did we get it, the federal government required institutions to give loans to people who "qualified". And so financial institutions gave the people what they wanted because of the federal government.
Then MANY of these "qualified" people foreclosed on homes that the government forced institutions to accept -- and ironically they blamed the financial institutions. So now the government is giving to the people what they are asking for -- again -- and now only the patient person can get a home loan. And "qualified" has again taken on new meaning. (And the documentation is more confusing than ever. But that's progress for you.)
The people are demanding a new health care bill. God help us all -- we're going to get what we are asking for. The government has certainly "helped" us in the past -- I don't see why this should be any different.
Here's what gets me about this and so many other things -- there...
So what I hear you saying is that you think the goverment needs to regulate MORE. Do I have that right?
No, it is not an equivalent statement.
Laws exist and they are enforced by police. There is no equivalent when it comes to healthcare. We have written the laws, and the laws must both be upheld and protected by our reps in govt. The police are an extension of that process.
Using that kind of absurd logic people will argue the right to own a computer, internet access, money to gamble, ipods, cars, etc based solely on need or perceived right (to happiness? lol). None of these are rights provided and protected by the Constitution - not even food or water to live. You cannot be denied these things, but they are not provided by the state.
This is just a process to take something from those who produce to those who do not. Classic redistribution - a gift for a permanent vote. Sure as hell isn't freedom.Healthcare providers are not slaves to the gov't, mandating and controlling the price they want to charge makes them gov't workers. They provide a SERVICE, that service needs to be paid for and should be priced according to what the market would bear. Otherwise they can (and hopefully will) just walk away.
This is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point in question is whether or not obligatory taxes are theft. If they are considered theft, they are as much theft for paying for police, firefighters and roads as they are for paying whathever else. The use of the "stolen" money (e.g. using it to enforce the constitution) is inconsequential to decide whether it was stolen or not.
Oh, and more. Are the "right to have roads" or "right to have firefighters" on the american constitution as well ? Are these public services privately owned in US ?
This is the one thing that is said by "Conservatives" which is either downright stupid or shows how cruel they are. They will say " how dare you spend my tax money on X?? Well I dont like the goverment going over to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and bombing it. And yet there goes MY tax money.And for those that argue that it's not in the Constitution, remember that the ONLY goverment department in the constitution is the US postal service. SO you are either going to use taxes for alot of things or NOTHING. You want to support nothing ??? Would you like to go to the grocery store and buy that steak that has not been inspected or raised and butchered by guidelines? Would you like to drive down that street in your sprot car on a road that has not been upkeep by tax money?? You cant pick and choose. You can say HOw much to spend on something.