| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're Americans. Evidently it is a point of pride that having cancer can make you bankrupt.
|
The only political issue we have with healthcare in the UK is which political party is going to support the NHS best.
Our "socialised" healthcare is utterly loved in this country by virtually everybody. So much so in fact that we put it in the Olympics opening ceremony.
I can walk into my doctor's with any ailment and be seen that day. If I have an accident I will be taken to hospital and treated. If I have a long term illness or require physiotherapy or care of any kind it will be provided for me.
At no point do I have to worry that my insurance will cover this or that I will be denied treatment for whatever reason. I get to concentrate on getting well.
Ours is a better system. Pure and simple.
It is the implementation that is tricky, if taxes paid for all healthcare (yet private practices still are available) is better then the government forcing you to buy private or pay penalties.
|
|
I am not pro-euthanasia.
The difference between punishing the unworthy and rewarding the worthy is that, in former I am responsible for their outcome, in the latter it is their own inaction, thus their own fault.
Not euthanasia, no. But you're perfectly willing to stand there and let people die if they don't meet your standards of "worthy". That's ok. Your hands are clean.
What is your criteria for who should live? Everyone regardless of anything? That is unbalanced.
In nature the weak die and strong survive, sometimes the weak dieing makes it easier for the strong to survive. Nature is a system of balance, we need balance just like the rest of the universe.
|
I just want to make sure I get this right as well. The people opposed to the government telling us what to do want to live in a rigid society where people are told how to live... is this wrong?
They are a community one is part of by choice, not one where armed men enforce rules you might stand firmly against (gov)
|
|
I am not pro-euthanasia.
The difference between punishing the unworthy and rewarding the worthy is that, in former I am responsible for their outcome, in the latter it is their own inaction, thus their own fault.
Not euthanasia, no. But you're perfectly willing to stand there and let people die if they don't meet your standards of "worthy". That's ok. Your hands are clean.
If some one refuses to eat and starves it is not my issue, if they choose to drink a gallon of drain-o not my problem and it they are unwilling to lift a finger to maintain their own life that is not my fault
|
|
Hippies were from day one about drugs and sex. What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about?Hippies almost understood it but then drugs and sex took over and to hell with greater good and work.You miss the point Irontruth, it's not just the simplicity, it's that they work together for the good of the community instead of each for their own pocketbooks.
They are non-capitalists.
They were about freedom, sharing/not being materialistic and being more in touch with the earth. Tolerating drugs and being freely sexual was part of it but not the focus. in the end that seemed to be the whole hippy experience.
|
|
They are a community one is part of by choice, not one where armed men enforce rules you might stand firmly against (gov)How else do you enforce rules?
That is part of why i like groups like the amish where it is a choice, why whatever rules they have in their groups are acceptable because it is a choice. Governments should have minimal laws because it is far less a choice and far harder to get away from
|
|
If some one refuses to eat and starves it is not my issue, if they choose to drink a gallon of drain-o not my problem and it they are unwilling to lift a finger to maintain their own life that is not my faultI am not pro-euthanasia.
The difference between punishing the unworthy and rewarding the worthy is that, in former I am responsible for their outcome, in the latter it is their own inaction, thus their own fault.
Not euthanasia, no. But you're perfectly willing to stand there and let people die if they don't meet your standards of "worthy". That's ok. Your hands are clean.
And you possess the wisdom to tell who is "unwilling to lift a finger" and who is struggling but failing to do so? Do you trust government or welfare organizations to do so?
Or do you think that everyone who falls to the brink does so solely because of their personal failings and are thus unworthy?
That is why we have (and need better) standards to qualify for gov. money instead of a blank check to any that ask (demand more like it). that said i have REPEATEDLY said that we should not let people starve but the tax payer should not foot the bill for (several liters) daily pop and redbull.
|
That is part of why i like groups like the amish where it is a choice, why whatever rules they have in their groups are acceptable because it is a choice. Governments should have minimal laws because it is far less a choice and far harder to get away from
So what do you do if someone refuses to follow the rules and refuses to leave?
|
|
That is part of why i like groups like the amish where it is a choice, why whatever rules they have in their groups are acceptable because it is a choice. Governments should have minimal laws because it is far less a choice and far harder to get away fromSo what do you do if someone refuses to follow the rules and refuses to leave?
That is where most subcultures do this thing called shunning. the offender gets the hint and either straightens up or leaves. In a group like the amish the neighbors stop helping and sharing, forcing the offender to move on or follow the rules. But humans have a jackass streak a mile wide so they end up everywhere, sometimes you just ignore them and go on with life as long as they do no harm to others.
|
|
That is why we have (and need better) standards to qualify for gov. money instead of a blank check to any that ask (demand more like it). that said i have REPEATEDLY said that we should not let people starve but the tax payer should not foot the bill for (several liters) daily pop and redbull.If some one refuses to eat and starves it is not my issue, if they choose to drink a gallon of drain-o not my problem and it they are unwilling to lift a finger to maintain their own life that is not my faultAnd you possess the wisdom to tell who is "unwilling to lift a finger" and who is struggling but failing to do so? Do you trust government or welfare organizations to do so?
Or do you think that everyone who falls to the brink does so solely because of their personal failings and are thus unworthy?
We do not give blank checks to any that ask. We have a complicated process that is easy to game by those who are unscrupulous and know how to work the system and hard to access by many of those who truly need it.
This has largely been driven by those, like you, who want to clamp down on abuse.
Then we make it harder to game. No more fun money, no more infinite junk food. We can feed the starving and house the homeless with out allowing the current abuse and a LARGE part of it is now the trash industries fighting for a piece of the pie. lobbyists are fighting to expand the scope of what those damn cards cover to get money and corrupt treasonous politicians are lapping up the campaign money and handing back the tax dollars
We're Americans. Evidently it is a point of pride that having cancer can make you bankrupt.
Yes, but you go bankrupt and die as a rugged individualist, unfettered by the tyranny of medical care.
|
|
Can we make it harder to game without making it harder for those who need it to get access?
Yes by controlling what it is used for. Not allowing tobacco, alcohol, pop, redbull, etc will never stop a starving person from eating but will take the fun out of it for those that game it. Controlling who uses the cards by requiring a name on it (hell add picture etc or require ID to use) to reduce sales of cards will not hurt legal users.
I just want to make sure I get this right as well. The people opposed to the government telling us what to do want to live in a rigid society where people are told how to live... is this wrong?They are a community one is part of by choice, not one where armed men enforce rules you might stand firmly against (gov)
Their culture is also built around the idea of stifling new ideas, creativity and kicks out anyone who doesn't toe the line. This is how their culture propagates itself, by declaring that things outside their culture are evil. Children grow up learning that things outside the culture are bad.
|
|
Their culture is also built around the idea of stifling new ideas, creativity and kicks out anyone who doesn't toe the line. This is how their culture propagates itself, by declaring that things outside their culture are evil. Children grow up learning that things outside the culture are bad.I just want to make sure I get this right as well. The people opposed to the government telling us what to do want to live in a rigid society where people are told how to live... is this wrong?They are a community one is part of by choice, not one where armed men enforce rules you might stand firmly against (gov)
Isn't that always the case? do not all american children get that? that any religion but mommy's is wrong, or for the atheist's child that any religion is wrong? Do we not ingrain our personal beliefs every day into children and expect them to live as we do? does not EVERY culture say that other cultures are wrong (maybe even evil?)
What about the liberal conspiracy that calls you racists for not overly respecting other cultures? You can't have it both ways.
What about the liberal conspiracy that calls you racists for not overly respecting other cultures? You can't have it both ways.The liberal culture of race politics is very much guilty of doing what you complain about with the amish, indoctrination.
To overvalue other cultures because they're evil?
Your absolutes are showing, I'd recommend trimming them back.
|
|
What about the liberal conspiracy that calls you racists for not overly respecting other cultures? You can't have it both ways.The liberal culture of race politics is very much guilty of doing what you complain about with the amish, indoctrination.To overvalue other cultures because they're evil?
Your absolutes are showing, I'd recommend trimming them back.
Not at all, all cultures are a mix of right and wrong. it is just as bad to overvalue your own as it is to demonize your own
|
|
Not at all, all cultures are a mix of right and wrong. it is just as bad to overvalue your own as it is to demonize your ownNobody of consequence is demonizing their own culture.
You mean like a certain rock star that got his own thread here? many celebrities that help shape the opinions of the foolish masses? Talking trash about america is a hollywood past time....
|
|
The liberal culture of race politics is very much guilty of doing what you complain about with the amish, indoctrination.Indoctrinating people to do what, exactly?
Generally, one of two answers, to live as is believed to be the right way by those who built the system, and/or to work harder and cheaper for those who own the work (this is generally when the workers aren't the ones who own work).
They were about freedom, sharing/not being materialistic and being more in touch with the earth. Tolerating drugs and being freely sexual was part of it but not the focus. in the end that seemed to be the whole hippy experience.Hippies were from day one about drugs and sex. What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about?Hippies almost understood it but then drugs and sex took over and to hell with greater good and work.You miss the point Irontruth, it's not just the simplicity, it's that they work together for the good of the community instead of each for their own pocketbooks.
They are non-capitalists.
I'm sorry, but once again you are mistaken. "Tolerating" drugs? Please, read a book sometime.
I just want to make sure I get this right as well. The people opposed to the government telling us what to do want to live in a rigid society where people are told how to live... is this wrong?They are a community one is part of by choice, not one where armed men enforce rules you might stand firmly against (gov)
They are a community that exists because of protection by the larger U.S. -- if not for that, they'd've been kicked out by successive waves of settlers long ago. They maintain their current mode of life under the protection of the U.S. government -- if an Amish community appeared in, say, Central Africa, it would immediately by looted and absorbed by the nearest warlord or militia. In exchange, they have to abide by U.S. laws -- and armed men enforce those laws regardless of whether the Amish stand firmly against them. Their secret is to be sure not to go around murdering people, committing rape, speeding on highways -- in short, to follow U.S. laws. So, in a sense, the government is telling them how to live exactly as much as it tells the rest of us how to live, under much the same terms.
|
|
They are a community that exists because of protection by the larger U.S. -- if not for that, they'd've been kicked out by successive waves of settlers long ago. They maintain their current mode of life under the protection of the U.S. government -- if an Amish community appeared in, say, Central Africa, it would immediately by looted and absorbed by the nearest warlord or militia. In exchange, they have to abide by U.S. laws -- and armed men enforce those laws regardless of whether the Amish stand firmly against them. Their secret is to be sure not to go around murdering people, committing rape, speeding on highways -- in short, to follow U.S. laws. So, in a sense, the government is telling them how to live exactly as much as it tells the rest of us how to live, under much the same terms.I just want to make sure I get this right as well. The people opposed to the government telling us what to do want to live in a rigid society where people are told how to live... is this wrong?They are a community one is part of by choice, not one where armed men enforce rules you might stand firmly against (gov)
The point is that their very strict society is by choice. if the gov was as strict as the amish it would be more of a problem.
So children choose to be born into that society.
im a health care provider and i can tell you doctors opting out of medicare medicade is already happening..in the last two years the health care industrys gotten alot worst..obama care is going to make it worst..a heart specialist told me that he may be a heartless fat cat to some but just remenber his also a heartless fat cat that dont have to see paients on government asssitance if he wants to...says there are plenty of wealthy people with heart problems..
the cracks are getting wider
Thanks for the recap of Atlas Shrugged.
See, it's the "with few problems" that I have to take issue with. Sure, Rumspringa gives the kids a chance to go crazy with The English before joining the religion once and for all, but there's no kind of preparation for surviving in the world at large, and the default assumption is that the kids will return and rejoin Amish society.
I'll also point out that Amish is a very broad category; some Amish use computers, some some Amish believe that having upholstery on your furniture is a sin.
I think we should all be grateful that we've finally discovered a group of people that Citizen R. actually likes and leave it at that.
Sometimes the admiration of a cultural group and the actual residence within said group can cause quite the cultural shock reaction and a reality check to bounce.
So children choose to be born into that society.Nope, but one wonderful thing they can do is leave at 18 with few problems. Can children born into any subculture choose their parents?
World-wide, the greatest determining factor of what religion you 'choose' is which religion your parents practice.
Just because a culture is able to propagate itself doesn't mean it's good. If we all lived like the amish, you wouldn't have your computer. If you think that's a good thing, feel free to sell your computer or throw it out.
So children choose to be born into that society.Nope, but one wonderful thing they can do is leave at 18 with few problems. Can children born into any subculture choose their parents?
No.
So having children is an act of tyranny and oppression./doffs cap