NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that half our country nowadays thinks that govenrment is responsible to take care of them. To provide for their healthcare, babysitting, retirement, and everything else that at one time were the sole responsibility of the individual.

I can understand why Hillory Clinton and Teddy Kennedy would want to "wage war on the individual in this country" they are politicians. But how could our citizenry accept this?

So is the government responsible for everything in our lives? If not, what is the individual responsible for to provide for themselves? Not healthcare, obviously. Not retirement since we have Social Security. There is not one single aspect of our lives that the government does not have it's greedy little hand in. This is frightening.

Should the government protect us from everything bad that could happen to us?

Not necessarly every aspect of life, but healt-care is what I consider important, to protect citizens from having to rely on insurances, a public health-car system (with private substitues) assures everyone of proper health-care, a human right.

Back when medical care was limited to a quick bleeding and some laxatives anyone could afford it. Also families didn't need daycare because they only needed one breadwinner. These days many can't afford healthcare and the numbers are rising. Also most families need two paychecks to make ends meet. I do beleive that the government should help out in order to have a better society for all of us.

Social security? Won't have that for too much longer. So, we're all free to [starve when we] retire! [unless we make some good responsible personal financial decisions]

Not necessarly every aspect of life, but healt-care is what I consider important, to protect citizens from having to rely on insurances, a public health-car system (with private substitues) assures everyone of proper health-care, a human right.

Health care is a "human right?" Oh please show me where this is written?

Personal responsibility went out the window in the 1960's with LBJ and his "war on poverty." Liberals and their "feel good" programs took all the incentive away to succeed on ones own.

Back when medical care was limited to a quick bleeding and some laxatives anyone could afford it. Also families didn't need daycare because they only needed one breadwinner. These days many can't afford healthcare and the numbers are rising. Also most families need two paychecks to make ends meet. I do beleive that the government should help out in order to have a better society for all of us.
I hear this alot, but I dont understand it. You (the general you not necessarily you Joey P) state that most families need 2 paychecks to make ends meet.
Going back to the time that you (Joey P) mentioned when medical care was a quick bleeding and some laxitives (dark ages right?) families made do with one paycheck because they didnt buy things they couldnt afford.
My wife, son and I live comfortably on my salary alone. Always have. When my wife became pregnant 10 years ago, she left her job as an EMT and we have been doing fine since then. We havent been able to buy a new car every 3 years, or buy that new $5000 stereo. But we live within our means. I dont understand how other people cant do the same? Live within your means, rather than increase your means to pay for your lifestyle.

So is the government responsible for everything in our lives? If not, what is the individual responsible for to provide for themselves? Not healthcare, obviously. Not retirement since we have Social Security. There is not one single aspect of our lives that the government does not have it's greedy little hand in. This is frightening.

Should the government protect us from everything bad that could happen to us?
I like your libertarian principles - while I think the government should have a *very* small responsiblity to the individuals of this country (very little beyond protecting our civil liberties), they should tend to stay out of it as much as possible - today they interfere way too much.

Speaking of personal responsiblity, do you think censorship should be done away with upon that basis? the following is a blog one of my friends wrote about censorship and personal responsiblity and I couldn't agree with him more:

"The FCC is the most bullshit organization on the face of the planet. I can barely express my utter contempt and hatred of this Nazi-esque organization . . . HOW CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECIDE WHAT IS DECENT?!?!? If you have a problem with what is on TV, DONT FUCKING WATCH IT. All this [censorship] does is increase people's lack of responsibility. Why can't people just take responsibility for their own ridiculous sensitivities???"

You don't think its a human right? If you go bankrupt how would like to bleed to death in the gutter because you've been denied medical care

It seems that half our country nowadays thinks that govenrment is responsible to take care of them. To provide for their healthcare, babysitting, retirement, and everything else that at one time were the sole responsibility of the individual.


Since WWII, the government has allowed the economy of the US to slip down a greased pole into a nightmarish quagmire that the individual is no longer capable of crawling out from.

Long gone are the days when a person could bootstrap themselves into success. In the 1950s, a family of four on an average single income could own a house, always have a new car, and put the kids through college.

Certain things like the devaluation of the dollar in the 80s, savings and loans scandals, and a whole host of government sponsored economic destruction has now rendered it so that a family of four with both parents working full time cannot afford a new home and can forget about trying to pay for their kids to go to college.

The government fucked it up and, yes, the government needs to clean it up. If that means they need to buy my groceries so I can pay my electric bill, then so be it. If it means I pay a tiny fraction extra in taxes so that a poor family can eat, then so be it.

Whether you know it or not, somebody somewhere is paying a little bit more in taxes just to help *you*. Deal with it.

No, the government should let poor people starve and be denied basic health care.


Why don't you take a look at the Great Depression before you make baseless assertions about *personal responsibility*.

It took a fair amount of socialism to get us out of that mess, with government planning, the New Deal, and so on...

Don't knock the welfare state, it's worked in the past.

You don't think its a human right? If you go bankrupt how would like to bleed to death in the gutter because you've been denied medical care

No, it is NOT a human right. It is a service that one has to pay for.

No, it is NOT a human right. It is a service that one has to pay for.


Tell that to a four year old girl with lukemia.

It seems that half our country nowadays thinks that govenrment is responsible to take care of them. To provide for their healthcare, babysitting, retirement, and everything else that at one time were the sole responsibility of the individual.

I can understand why Hillory Clinton and Teddy Kennedy would want to "wage war on the individual in this country" they are politicians. But how could our citizenry accept this?

So is the government responsible for everything in our lives? If not, what is the individual responsible for to provide for themselves? Not healthcare, obviously. Not retirement since we have Social Security. There is not one single aspect of our lives that the government does not have it's greedy little hand in. This is frightening.

Should the government protect us from everything bad that could happen to us?
so you support the side that tells people what is right and wrong for them. that its wrong to have an abortion, that gay marriage is wrong, that tv shouldnt be allowed to show this or that.

so its PERECTLY ok for the government to tell us what we can and cant do in our every day lives, but its completely ludicrous to suggest they take care of us instead of forcing us to fend for ourselves in a ocean of sharks: healthcare and the like

I hear this alot, but I dont understand it. You (the general you not necessarily you Joey P) state that most families need 2 paychecks to make ends meet.
Going back to the time that you (Joey P) mentioned when medical care was a quick bleeding and some laxitives (dark ages right?) families made do with one paycheck because they didnt buy things they couldnt afford.
My wife, son and I live comfortably on my salary alone. Always have. When my wife became pregnant 10 years ago, she left her job as an EMT and we have been doing fine since then. We havent been able to buy a new car every 3 years, or buy that new $5000 stereo. But we live within our means. I dont understand how other people cant do the same? Live within your means, rather than increase your means to pay for your lifestyle.
The cost of living in some parts of the country is much higher than in others. Perhaps you couldn't get by in New York, New Jersey, or Hawaii. In Idaho it's probably pretty easy to get by on one check.

so you support the side that tells people what is right and wrong for them. that its wrong to have an abortion, that gay marriage is wrong, that tv shouldnt be allowed to show this or that.

so its PERECTLY ok for the government to tell us what we can and cant do in our every day lives, but its completely ludicrous to suggest they take care of us instead of forcing us to fend for ourselves in a ocean of sharks: healthcare and the like


That is the hypocrisy of the neoconservative religious right movement.

I respect libertarians much more on this, they feel the same way about economics as the neocons, but at least they have the sense to be consistent on freedom.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25 S. 1
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 25 S. 1
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Problem is that this is coming from someone that does not believe in our foundations of our Constitution. That is why we blow off any requests the UN may have for the most part. The UN does not believe in private property. Private property is one of the principles of our Constituion under the Federalist papers that ratified it. If there was something within our Constitution calling for health care then we would be able to do it. Otherwise it is just like some guy down the street telling you how you need to raise you're kids.

Personal responsibility has been an idea only for a few hundred years. If you talked to someone in the dark ages they would probably say that if something bad happened to them it was because God didn't like how they worshipped him. Even if we saw it was their fault they probably wouldn't have seen it like that.

The problem with socialized healthcare is that under said system it takes *years* before you can get surgery for something if you need it.

Problem is that this is coming from someone that does not believe in our foundations of our Constitution. That is why we blow off any requests the UN may have for the most part. The UN does not believe in private property. Private property is one of the principles of our Constituion under the Federalist papers that ratified it. If there was something within our Constitution calling for health care then we would be able to do it. Otherwise it is just like some guy down the street telling you how you need to raise you're kids.

Originally Free Speech was not in the Constitution. Or the Bill of Rights in general. That's why they are all amendments.

Health care is a "human right?" Oh please show me where this is written?

The right to live. But perhaps US has the legal right to perform a private health-care system, after all the last UN member fee was payed in like, two or three years ago, anyone who knows?

Tell that to a four year old girl with lukemia.

Please show me anywhere that says healthcare is a human right?

Originally Free Speech was not in the Constitution. Or the Bill of Rights in general. That's why they are all amendments.

Hey, I have no problem with anyone trying to get national health care put in as an ammendment. Go for it.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25 S. 1
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Oh yes...the UN. Since when does the UN have any power over ANY country. Does the Sudan guarantee the right to life for the 10,000 a day they kill there? Why not? they ARE on the "human rights" commission. :rolleyes:

Problem is that this is coming from someone that does not believe in our foundations of our Constitution. That is why we blow off any requests the UN may have for the most part. The UN does not believe in private property. Private property is one of the principles of our Constituion under the Federalist papers that ratified it. If there was something within our Constitution calling for health care then we would be able to do it. Otherwise it is just like some guy down the street telling you how you need to raise you're kids.
does all of that inane babblnig somehow invalidate teh point behind the universal declaration of human rights? im sorry does it scare you capitalists or something that people should be protected and kept healthy by the govenrment isntead of a overfed medical industry being paid millions of dollars it shouldnt get? you think government subsidizing of health care would somehow be worse than health insurance as it is now?

and this is also to the moron who said it would take motnhs to get into the waiting room.

do you think changing from teh asinine capitalist health insurance system to government coverage magically reduce the amount of doctors, hospitals and nurses that were already there? how does it increase waiting lists? have you seen the waiting lists for LIFE SAVING operations? i think you better look how long it would take you to get a organ transplant.

Problem is that this is coming from someone that does not believe in our foundations of our Constitution. That is why we blow off any requests the UN may have for the most part. The UN does not believe in private property. Private property is one of the principles of our Constituion under the Federalist papers that ratified it. If there was something within our Constitution calling for health care then we would be able to do it. Otherwise it is just like some guy down the street telling you how you need to raise you're kids.

If America doesn't like the rules of UN membership, then quit it (instead of just visiting the meetings withouth paying membership fees)!

Furthermore, UN does belive in private property, if paying taxes for welfare is a tribute to communism then pying taxes for the army is communist too (they are both services provided by the government).

Health care is a "human right?" Oh please show me where this is written?

Personal responsibility went out the window in the 1960's with LBJ and his "war on poverty." Liberals and their "feel good" programs took all the incentive away to succeed on ones own.

Personal responsibility my ass.

Health care should be for all.

I will give you an example of a scare we just had.

Poor family renting a home. Four children whom my girl plays about every other day. One by one over the span of a couple weeks they get sick. The first one gets very sick and then the second. Since they don't have insurence they try to take care of it on their own.

Eventually they go to the emergency room and guess what Spinal Menengitas.

We have to wait 2 weeks to see if my girl had it.

People can infect you when they don't have access to medicine.

Sorry but the Liberterians lack of compassion is why they can't take power.

If America doesn't like the rules of UN membership, then quit it (instead of just visiting the meetings withouth paying membership fees)!

Furthermore, UN does belive in private property, if paying taxes for welfare is a tribute to communism then pying taxes for the army is communist too (they are both services provided by the government).

Oh how I wish we would quit and kick that useless organization out of New York so we can turn that land into a childrens park and get some real use out of it. Do you think you can help make that happen?

Oh yes...the UN. Since when does the UN have any power over ANY country. Does the Sudan guarantee the right to life for the 10,000 a day they kill there? Why not? they ARE on the "human rights" commission. :rolleyes:

Well, the government of Sudan signed the Human Rights declaration, but how much authourity to act along with it do they have? Every country in UN has signed it, and they are doing their best (at least that is what is expected), and US could do so much more...

Un does not have any power, it is an international forum, like the one for the NS states. But breaking these rules you have actually agreed to follow is the same crime as any other international contract breaking, wheter you accept it or not.

Personal responsibility my ass.

Health care should be for all.

I will give you an example of a scare we just had.

Poor family renting a home. Four children whom my girl plays about every other day. One by one over the span of a couple weeks they get sick. The first one gets very sick and then the second. Since they don't have insurence they try to take care of it on their own.

Eventually they go to the emergency room and guess what Spinal Menengitas.

We have to wait 2 weeks to see if my girl had it.

People can infect you when they don't have access to medicine.

Sorry but the Liberterians lack of compassion is why they can't take power.


This is not about "compassion" or the lack thereof. It is about "personal responsibility." These days noone is responsible for themselves. Too fat? It is McDonalds fault!! Kill someone? I was on a sugar high from all the hershey bars I ate and am not responsible!!

Health care is a "human right?" Oh please show me where this is written?

Personal responsibility went out the window in the 1960's with LBJ and his "war on poverty." Liberals and their "feel good" programs took all the incentive away to succeed on ones own.

Someone needs to go read the Christian Bible again and see what Jesus says about the poor.

Some examples:

Mark 10

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Mark 12


The Widow's Offering

41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.


Luke 12

32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Luke 14

12Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Matthew 6
23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

So...if you believe in the Christian scripture, you know that Jesus says to help those who need help, right? Or am I wrong?

Personal responsibility my ass.

Health care should be for all.

I will give you an example of a scare we just had.

Poor family renting a home. Four children whom my girl plays about every other day. One by one over the span of a couple weeks they get sick. The first one gets very sick and then the second. Since they don't have insurence they try to take care of it on their own.

Eventually they go to the emergency room and guess what Spinal Menengitas.

We have to wait 2 weeks to see if my girl had it.

People can infect you when they don't have access to medicine.

Sorry but the Liberterians lack of compassion is why they can't take power.
and is why alot of republicans shouldnt have power

I hear this alot, but I dont understand it. You (the general you not necessarily you Joey P) state that most families need 2 paychecks to make ends meet.
Going back to the time that you (Joey P) mentioned when medical care was a quick bleeding and some laxitives (dark ages right?) families made do with one paycheck because they didnt buy things they couldnt afford.
My wife, son and I live comfortably on my salary alone. Always have. When my wife became pregnant 10 years ago, she left her job as an EMT and we have been doing fine since then. We havent been able to buy a new car every 3 years, or buy that new $5000 stereo. But we live within our means. I dont understand how other people cant do the same? Live within your means, rather than increase your means to pay for your lifestyle.

Sounds like a decent arguement. Now back ground details.

What is your job title and where do you live. Also give us the average price of a house in your area.

Well, the government of Sudan signed the Human Rights declaration, but how much authourity to act along with it do they have? Every country in UN has signed it, and they are doing their best (at least that is what is expected), and US could do so much more...

Un does not have any power, it is an international forum, like the one for the NS states. But breaking these rules you have actually agreed to follow is the same crime as any other international contract breaking, wheter you accept it or not.

You miss the point...Sudan is ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OVERSEEING CONDITIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!

Of course they are fighting the christian minority in the south and killing 1,000's every day. So what?

Oh how I wish we would quit and kick that useless organization out of New York so we can turn that land into a childrens park and get some real use out of it. Do you think you can help make that happen?

I am against UN myslf, but I have accepted that there really is no chance of getting the majority of my fellow citizens to agree with my views, speak for that opinion, it is your right as citizen in a democratic country.

So...if you believe in the Christian scripture, you know that Jesus says to help those who need help, right? Or am I wrong?

He also said he helps those who help themselves....;)

Sounds like a decent arguement. Now back ground details.

What is your job title and where do you live. Also give us the average price of a house in your area.
dont forget level of education

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25 S. 1
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Theres an interesting article from about 1968 by Garret Hardin titled "The Tragedy of the Commons". The Commons was pasture land open to all in colonial New England. Because each person saw the benefit of an extra cow they kept adding cows, and eventually the land was overgrazed and led to ruin for all. The point was that completely free use of any resource would lead to disaster. Hardin suggested several solutions, such as privately owned lands to solve some land resource problems, which we have done. Or perhaps taxing making it more expensive to produce pollutants than it would be to put in those filters. The biggest issue however, from which all other problems stem, is population. Although a solution is not clear, he does state that the mistake of the welfare state is to provide aid to those that cannot support themselves so that they can continue overbreeding.

You miss the point...Sudan is ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OVERSEEING CONDITIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!


And what do you think are the chances for that the UN administration actually selected them to the post? If you are a member of the UN there are some things you have to accpet, that is one of them.

If America doesn't like the rules of UN membership, then quit it (instead of just visiting the meetings withouth paying membership fees)!

Furthermore, UN does belive in private property, if paying taxes for welfare is a tribute to communism then pying taxes for the army is communist too (they are both services provided by the government).

It would be the only reason that I could think of that you would post such a dumb statement. Being taxed for the defense of the nation is one thing. A necessary thing. But to be taxed so that the government can take money from you to give to someone else who has made worse decisions in life than you have is socialist and just plain wrong.

As far as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I refer you to Article 29 p.3 "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

So you have these "rights" as long as the UN says you do. But don't go against what they think is right or you will have NO rights.



:sniper:

If America doesn't like the rules of UN membership, then quit it (instead of just visiting the meetings withouth paying membership fees)!
Furthermore, UN does belive in private property, if paying taxes for welfare is a tribute to communism then pying taxes for the army is communist too (they are both services provided by the government).

We have been working on getting out of the UN, give us time.

Paying taxes for a National Security entity is exactly the only (ONLY) area our National Government is responsible for. Right now as we speak there are states within the US that have universal health care. Now if you can convince the 40 other states or whatever and get the 2/3 then 3/4 to ratify it into the Constitution then nobody will deny it is a right. Currently it is not a right in the US. Just stating a fact. :)

The problem with socialized healthcare is that under said system it takes *years* before you can get surgery for something if you need it.

Versus not being able to get it at all.

So socialized is bad how?

And what do you think are the chances for that the UN administration actually selected them to the post? If you are a member of the UN there are some things you have to accpet, that is one of them.

Thats why the US withdrew from the commission....it is a sick joke.

does all of that inane babblnig somehow invalidate teh point behind the universal declaration of human rights? im sorry does it scare you capitalists or something that people should be protected and kept healthy by the govenrment isntead of a overfed medical industry being paid millions of dollars it shouldnt get? you think government subsidizing of health care would somehow be worse than health insurance as it is now?

You dont get what I am saying. It is up to the people to decide and they have not ratified our Constitution to allow such a thing to happen. The deal with this entire idea is that it would require a military defense budget cut. Last I checked neither the Democrats or Republicans want to cut military spending in any way.

If there was a way to not force someone to pay into this system that they do not want to use because they want privatized medicine. That way they get to choose how their money is spent then it might actually work. But when it is based as a high taxation system that everyone must pay into. People lose choices and that is what America is all about. Choices.

How much money do you make chess? I make less than 20k a year and have full health & dental coverage aside from my va coverage for my disabilities. I pay for these extra costs for myself by myself with no outside assistance. If I can do it then I know any other poor sob can. Living within you're means is the answer (someone else already added) to this problem.

If people want free healthcare go join the military and get wounded or die for you're Country and then you can have you're so called free health care. Nothing in life is free, work for what you want and get what you need.

Theres an interesting article from about 1968 by Garret Hardin titled "The Tragedy of the Commons". The Commons was pasture land open to all in colonial New England. Because each person saw the benefit of an extra cow they kept adding cows, and eventually the land was overgrazed and led to ruin for all. The point was that completely free use of any resource would lead to disaster. Hardin suggested several solutions, such as privately owned lands to solve some land resource problems, which we have done. Or perhaps taxing making it more expensive to produce pollutants than it would be to put in those filters. The biggest issue however, from which all other problems stem, is population. Although a solution is not clear, he does state that the mistake of the welfare state is to provide aid to those that cannot support themselves so that they can continue overbreeding.
that hasnt stopped china, or india, both extremely poor countries and together have 1/5 i believe of the WORLD'S population, ALONE. maybe you should keep up with the times and the real world, cross back through the looking glass

It would be the only reason that I could think of that you would post such a dumb statement. Being taxed for the defense of the nation is one thing. A necessary thing. But to be taxed so that the government can take money from you to give to someone else who has made worse decisions in life than you have is socialist and just plain wrong.
ever heard of insurance? i rest my case

This is not about "compassion" or the lack thereof. It is about "personal responsibility." These days noone is responsible for themselves. Too fat? It is McDonalds fault!! Kill someone? I was on a sugar high from all the hershey bars I ate and am not responsible!!

Ahh then you need to be a little more explicit.

"Personal responsibility went out the window in the 1960's with LBJ and his "war on poverty." Liberals and their "feel good" programs took all the incentive away to succeed on ones own."

From the above, global healthcare can full under the "feel good" programs.

Besides I don't buy that crap about removing incentive. My mom was a welfare recipiant for a short spell. Bought in to the Repbulican Christian crap of the mother at home. My old man split and here was a woman with no skills and two children. Espeically in the period where good "moral" people looked down on women for being divorsed. Guess what? She had the incentive to become an RN and my sister and I had the incentive to succeed as well.

I don't think we would be where we are if we didn't give a little help from the EVIL liberal welfare agenda.

Paying taxes for a National Security entity is exactly the only (ONLY) area our National Government is responsible for. Right now as we speak there are states within the US that have universal health care. Now if you can convince the 40 other states or whatever and get the 2/3 then 3/4 to ratify it into the Constitution then nobody will deny it is a right. Currently it is not a right in the US. Just stating a fact. :)

:)

Well, I am no expert of American juridics, but I thik the th Stares have agreed to follow international treaties they have signed, am I right or am I wrong?

I understand your point and can't see anything wrong with this if this is the way you wan it, but you can't be in the UN AND do as you wish, it is as simple as that.

By the way it feels like this little conversation has run dead, perhaps we should go on, what do you think of the government controlling other parts of the citizens' lives? Law and order for example...

that hasnt stopped china, or india, both extremely poor countries and together have 1/5 i believe of the WORLD'S population, ALONE. maybe you should keep up with the times and the real world, cross back through the looking glass

I only used that article because I read it recently for a project. Besides, if you had read it, it is still relevant. O ya, arn't China and India increasing their emissions of pollution significantly ?(they seem to be playing catch up) China has established population controls, although resulting in cases of female infanticide, thus a practical/moral solution to population growth seems unlikely.

Ahh then you need to be a little more explicit.

"Personal responsibility went out the window in the 1960's with LBJ and his "war on poverty." Liberals and their "feel good" programs took all the incentive away to succeed on ones own."

From the above, global healthcare can full under the "feel good" programs.

Besides I don't buy that crap about removing incentive. My mom was a welfare recipiant for a short spell. Bought in to the Repbulican Christian crap of the mother at home. My old man split and here was a woman with no skills and two children. Espeically in the period where good "moral" people looked down on women for being divorsed. Guess what? She had the incentive to become an RN and my sister and I had the incentive to succeed as well.

I don't think we would be where we are if we didn't give a little help from the EVIL liberal welfare agenda.


Why did they reform welfare? Because there were generations of families that knew nothing BUT welfare. They had no incentive to do anything else. They were not "hungry" enough to get out and do something. Of course some have incentive on their own, but others need a push. The welfare programs of the 60's did nothing to get people to act on their own behalf.

I only used that article because I read it recently for a project. Besides, if you had read it, it is still relevant. O ya, arn't China and India increasing their emissions of pollution significantly ?(they seem to be playing catch up) China has established population controls, although resulting in cases of female infanticide, thus a practical/moral solution to population growth seems unlikely.
do you somehow suggest that voids my counter point?

your point is instituting a full healthcare in a welfare state will only stand to make it worse, well china and india are popping out babies like there is no tomorrow and they arep retty damn poor. what about all the OTHER countries that ARE NOT poor but DO have health care systems? canada britain etc, i dont see them with that many people.

please explain, if you can, how instituting a free health care system in a society where everyone has access to a hospital and medical care already as long as they are willing to pay an arm and a leg for it is going to make anything worse

Why did they reform welfare? Because there were generations of families that knew nothing BUT welfare. They had no incentive to do anything else. They were not "hungry" enough to get out and do something. Of course some have incentive on their own, but others need a push. The welfare programs of the 60's did nothing to get people to act on their own behalf.

All right numbers check.

There are abusers in any situation.

The myth of the welfare queens is frequently parroted.

So how many people that have used welfare only wanted to stay on welfare?

Well, I am no expert of American juridics, but I thik the th Stares have agreed to follow international treaties they have signed, am I right or am I wrong? I understand your point and can't see anything wrong with this if this is the way you wan it, but you can't be in the UN AND do as you wish, it is as simple as that.

Our Constitution takes precedence over any and all treaties. If they are not in sink with our Constitution then they can not be enforced. We do not have to follow unConstitutional law of any type.

Actually you can be in the UN and do whatever you want, do I really need to throw out some clues? I believe the UN didn't want us to attack Iraq, yea they told us! And imagine that we are still in the UN no different than before.

ever heard of insurance? i rest my case

What is your point? Insurance are a private industry. I will agree that the government has way to much control over the insurance companies but that proves my point. Not yours.

By the way it feels like this little conversation has run dead, perhaps we should go on, what do you think of the government controlling other parts of the citizens' lives? Law and order for example...

The government controlling law and order? Are you speaking of local jurisdiction from the police? National Security issues?

do you somehow suggest that voids my counter point?

your point is instituting a full healthcare in a welfare state will only stand to make it worse, well china and india are popping out babies like there is no tomorrow and they arep retty damn poor. what about all the OTHER countries that ARE NOT poor but DO have health care systems? canada britain etc, i dont see them with that many people.

please explain, if you can, how instituting a free health care system in a society where everyone has access to a hospital and medical care already as long as they are willing to pay an arm and a leg for it is going to make anything worse

Your "counter-point" wasn't entirely clear. All you mentioned was that china and india have high populations. Now that you've clearly state your idea I can perhaps counter your counter. Maybe in countries with low growth rates it free health care wouldnt' be much of a problem. Then again...it may cause those that normally couldn't afford it to have more children leading to more strain on the system/resources leading to the Tragedy of the Commons. The article is still relevent because we still have problems with population and/or resource use today.

India and China seem to prove my argument. The population went so out of control, resources are being overused, and people are dirt poor or starving. This also applies to many worse off nations in the "third world".

O, and chess squares, in case you haven't noticed. I'm not drunk while discussing an issue! yet....:D

What is your point? Insurance are a private industry. I will agree that the government has way to much control over the insurance companies but that proves my point. Not yours.
that was NOT my point

look up how insurance works

you pay a THIRD PARTY company each month your hard earned money so that they will pay a SET amount for you in case soemthing happens, if they have to pay out a LOT to some one on the same bill or same insurance company as you, ie SOME ONE ELSE, your rates GO UP.

how is this better than the government doing it?

if the government controls it EVERYONE pays for it, do you have any idea how many people in the us dont have insurance thus all those people would be paying for hte government system instead of increasing your insurance rates. you wouldnt have to pay any more for that insurance thus that moeny goes to the govenrment instead of some third party shark who doesnt care. and not to mention, you would be paying the same amount or less, maybe more but it would be a STEADY rate, for FULL health care coverage, not some coverage and the rest you pay out of pocket

He also said he helps those who help themselves....;)

I looked up "help themselves" at http://www.bible.com and found nothing.

""help themselves"" was not found in the new testament.

I also looked up "help thyselves" (just for good measure)

""help thyselves"" was not found in the new testament.


You sure he said that?

NO HE DIDN'T!

http://www.acts17-11.com/cows_helps.html

I'll post the text anyway :)

Concerning "phantom scriptures" such as "Phillips 66:1"; I am in debt to Dr. David Reagan for this example, and for inspiring the Sacred Cows section in general.


"God helps those who help themselves!"
Hezekiah 6:1
This verse, of course, is not in the Bible. Hezekiah sounds plausible enough, but is not a real book of scripture. "Yeah! That's from the book of Hezekiah, isn't it?" is the code-word for these kinds of phantom texts.

This would seem old news by now, but just recently a friend of ours was scandalized when we told her this "verse" did not exist.

More important, this "verse" is unbiblical in its meaning. It is exactly the opposite of the message of scripture.


Jer 17:5 (NIV) This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD."
Prov 28:26 (NIV) He who trusts in himself is a fool...

that was NOT my point
look up how insurance works
you pay a THIRD PARTY company each month your hard earned money so that they will pay a SET amount for you in case soemthing happens, if they have to pay out a LOT to some one on the same bill or same insurance company as you, ie SOME ONE ELSE, your rates GO UP.
how is this better than the government doing it?
if the government controls it EVERYONE pays for it, do you have any idea how many people in the us dont have insurance thus all though people would be paying for hte government system. you wouldnt have to pay any more for that insurance thus that moeny goes to the govenrment instead of some third party shark who doesnt care. and not to mention, you would be paying the same amount or less, maybe more but it would be a STEADY rate, for FULL health care coverage, not some coverage and the rest you pay out of po

Tell me this. Would this cause a loss of choices? If so then that may be why Americans, yes even poor Americans that have no health care (i know quite a few that like not having HC over the gubmint paying 4 it) still choose to leave it the way it is. Even though they do not have health care they at least have the integrity to not force someone else to pay for their health issues. It all comes down to choices, Americans love them for themselves to choose over someone else saying what they must do.

Your "counter-point" wasn't entirely clear. All you mentioned was that china and india have high populations. Now that you've clearly state your idea I can perhaps counter your counter. Maybe in countries with low growth rates it free health care wouldnt' be much of a problem. Then again...it may cause those that normally couldn't afford it to have more children leading to more strain on the system/resources leading to the Tragedy of the Commons. The article is still relevent because we still have problems with population and/or resource use today.

India and China seem to prove my argument. The population went so out of control, resources are being overused, and people are dirt poor or starving. This also applies to many worse off nations in the "third world".

O, and chess squares, in case you haven't noticed. I'm not drunk while discussing an issue! yet....:D
you do not address my question

how can total health care make a situation worse if in said situation peopel already have ready access to medical care, whether they can afford it or not

You don't think its a human right? If you go bankrupt how would like to bleed to death in the gutter because you've been denied medical care
Where do you live? There is no one in America "bleed[ing] to death in the gutter because [they've] been denied medical care." Get real!

Oh how I wish we would quit and kick that useless organization out of New York so we can turn that land into a childrens park and get some real use out of it. Do you think you can help make that happen?

Its plenty useful. Without it we would have had a nuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis. The US has always been a supporter of the UN and so has the rest of the world. The only people who have impeded the UN are the ones we call 'rogue nations' (Iran, Iraq and such) and Israel (which you might want to include in that 'rogue' category).

And, of course, this administration did a one-eighty on decades of cooperation with the UN and are now learning what idoits they were to do such a thing.

You do not want to be in the group of people who bemoan the UN. They are losers.

you do not address my question

how can total health care make a situation worse if in said situation peopel already have ready access to medical care, whether they can afford it or not

Because if those that could not afford it before suddenly can, then they would be able to afford to have more children, which will continually increase the need for "free health care" adding the burden on the system. We've been having a similar problem with social security/medicare. As the elderly population gets larger the burden on the rest of the population becomes greater.

Hmmm, debates seemed a lot more fun under the influence.
DUI hahahahhah :D:D:D

Why don't you take a look at the Great Depression before you make baseless assertions about *personal responsibility*.

It took a fair amount of socialism to get us out of that mess, with government planning, the New Deal, and so on...

Don't knock the welfare state, it's worked in the past.

It didn't work out the way that you say it did, Chodolo. In fact, conditions for the average American were worse in 1939 than in 1932. Poverty rates were higher, as was homelessness. It wasn't any manner of socialist program that caused the United States to recover from the Great Depression, it was World War II that did it, by creating massive outlets for industrial production. If not for the massive military expenditures and tremendous deficit spending, conditions would likely have continued to decline.


He (Jesus) also said he helps those who help themselves....

Sorry, Biff. He never said that. That's a traditional proverb. Jesus did say to help the poor. However, he never said that it was the government's responsibility to do so. Far more useful and effective than any government program are the myriad charities dedicated to just that purpose. We, as human beings, should help each other out of love. The government should not force charity.

I apologize for the brevity. I'd explain more thoroughly, but I have a massive, pounding headache at the moment, and I just want to sleep. E-mail me if you want a more thorough discussion.

Because if those that could not afford it before suddenly can, then they would be able to afford to have more children, which will continually increase the need for "free health care" adding the burden on the system. We've been having a similar problem with social security/medicare. As the elderly population gets larger the burden on the rest of the population becomes greater.

Hmmm, debates seemed a lot more fun under the influence.
DUI hahahahhah :D:D:D
no wrong, a hospital is obligated to treat sick people.

and you want to control the population? put a limit on the number of children can be had in a military family, that should cut out alot of extras.

Where do you live? There is no one in America "bleed[ing] to death in the gutter because [they've] been denied medical care." Get real!
actually sage seems to think hospitals dont treat poor people or something

do you somehow suggest that voids my counter point?

your point is instituting a full healthcare in a welfare state will only stand to make it worse, well china and india are popping out babies like there is no tomorrow and they arep retty damn poor. what about all the OTHER countries that ARE NOT poor but DO have health care systems? canada britain etc, i dont see them with that many people.

please explain, if you can, how instituting a free health care system in a society where everyone has access to a hospital and medical care already as long as they are willing to pay an arm and a leg for it is going to make anything worse

It's simple...it again comes down to the individual. A doctor goes to school for years and years and puts himself in extreme debt in order to go through medical school, internship and practice. S/he does this with the knowledge that s/he will be able to make a very good living when they have completed their training.

Under a socialized medical system, this same doctor will have got put themselves through years and years of training and extreme debt to have the government tell them how much they can charge for each service? How long they are going to work each day and how many patients they will have to see? How many doctors do you think will stay doctors and how many future doctors will there be?

Then there will be the abusers. The people that will get a sniffle and head to the doctor's office because it is free.

We have a part of this going on already. The reason for the extreme cost of medical care today is because the government has such a hand in it and the insurance industry.

Here's what you liberals don't seem to understand... the government will always have a negative effect on everything that they get involved in. Therefore, the creators of the Constitution made it so that the federal government had a very small job and that the states and individuals would take care of the rest.

today, our federal government has shaken loose of the binding of the Constitution and has it's hand in every part of our personal and individual lives. From the bed you sleep on to the toilet you sit on, or as one talk show host put it, "from womb, to tomb." This is a travesty. And people are being trained to depend on government rather than depend on themselves.

It's simple...it again comes down to the individual. A doctor goes to school for years and years and puts himself in extreme debt in order to go through medical school, internship and practice. S/he does this with the knowledge that s/he will be able to make a very good living when they have completed their training.

Under a socialized medical system, this same doctor will have got put themselves through years and years of training and extreme debt to have the government tell them how much they can charge for each service? How long they are going to work each day and how many patients they will have to see? How many doctors do you think will stay doctors and how many future doctors will there be?

Then there will be the abusers. The people that will get a sniffle and head to the doctor's office because it is free.

We have a part of this going on already. The reason for the extreme cost of medical care today is because the government has such a hand in it and the insurance industry.

Here's what you liberals don't seem to understand... the government will always have a negative effect on everything that they get involved in. Therefore, the creators of the Constitution made it so that the federal government had a very small job and that the states and individuals would take care of the rest.

today, our federal government has shaken loose of the binding of the Constitution and has it's hand in every part of our personal and individual lives. From the bed you sleep on to the toilet you sit on, or as one talk show host put it, "from womb, to tomb." This is a travesty. And people are being trained to depend on government rather than depend on themselves.
oh. my. god. what ignorant tripe. under a subsidized healthcare system the government takes over the job of the HEALTH ISNURANCE industry, not the medical industry itself, the government pays the hospitals, not controls them

and if you even had the SLIGHTEST clue what you were talkngi about youwould alreayd realise the insurance companies tell the hospitals what they will be paying them, do you realise how much profit the insurance company is making off of this? they charge people what 30 40 dollars a month in order to tell the hospital what they will be paying them, then they dont pay them the whole of your bill

no wrong, a hospital is obligated to treat sick people.

and you want to control the population? put a limit on the number of children can be had in a military family, that should cut out alot of extras.

I am aware of hospitals having that obligation. But somehow I think free health care would put an ever increasing strain on everyone (look at previous posts for why).

I don't really see a solution for population control that we wouldn't consider infringing on our liberties until MASS (enough for us to take real notice) starvation occurs but ofcourse by then we will have found our peak population and couldnt' go any higher anyway. Depressing I know, but I don't really see anything else in the future.

oh. my. god. what ignorant tripe. under a subsidized healthcare system the government takes over the job of the HEALTH ISNURANCE industry, not the medical industry itself, the government pays the hospitals, not controls them

and if you even had the SLIGHTEST clue what you were talkngi about youwould alreayd realise the insurance companies tell the hospitals what they will be paying them, do you realise how much profit the insurance company is making off of this? they charge people what 30 40 dollars a month in order to tell the hospital what they will be paying them, then they dont pay them the whole of your bill

And you believe this because the federal government has a long history of only taking control of one aspect of an issue rather than all of it, right?

Yeah, and income tax will be repealed just as soon as the war is over too.

And you believe this because the federal government has a long history of only taking control of one aspect of an issue rather than all of it, right?

Yeah, and income tax will be repealed just as soon as the war is over too.
you wanna see this country go to hell in a handbasket? repeal the income tax, i will move to canada asap to avoid being bankrupted by that, we will have people going to mexico to look for job

this country does NOT take in enough money in sales in order to replace the income tax

What the Government needs to do is start dealing out justice to hospitals. It's them, not the insurance companies that are fucking America in the ass without lube. They charge the Insurance companies gobs of money for things, like 700 dollar coffee machine shit.

My friend broke her arm while she was (drunk) in Cancun. She got in and out of the hospital within three hours and for the entire operation, Everything inclusive, it cost 500 dollars. Everything checked out with an american doctor, except he said, the cast was damaged and needed to be replaced(she had a mechanical cast with a soft cast under it, and the mechanical cast got damaged when sehe was sleeping), the hospital Charged the Insurance company FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS for a replacement cast that was entirely identical. This is Three times the cost of the entire operation in mexico.

eBay later revealed to us that the cast retail for 48.99 USD.

That is, approximately, a THREE THOUSAND PERCENT markup.

Someone needs to stop that from happening

you wanna see this country go to hell in a handbasket? repeal the income tax, i will move to canada asap to avoid being bankrupted by that, we will have people going to mexico to look for job

this country does NOT take in enough money in sales in order to replace the income tax

That's funny, there's a pant load of economists that disagree with you.

But even IF your right, we could still cut the federal budget by half and then we wouldn't have any problems. We could start with all the socialist programs that have federal funding, National Endowment for the Arts sounds like a good place to start.

That's funny, there's a pant load of economists that disagree with you.

But even IF your right, we could still cut the federal budget by half and then we wouldn't have any problems. We could start with all the socialist programs that have federal funding, National Endowment for the Arts sounds like a good place to start.
rofl, what bs

and what economist are those, wanna quote them and the reasons they give

It's simple...it again comes down to the individual. A doctor goes to school for years and years and puts himself in extreme debt in order to go through medical school, internship and practice. S/he does this with the knowledge that s/he will be able to make a very good living when they have completed their training.


Ahh so it's about money and not helping people?


Under a socialized medical system, this same doctor will have got put themselves through years and years of training and extreme debt to have the government tell them how much they can charge for each service? How long they are going to work each day and how many patients they will have to see? How many doctors do you think will stay doctors and how many future doctors will there be?

In a free market system they would have to compete. Now why is it you can't shop around for the best price?


Then there will be the abusers. The people that will get a sniffle and head to the doctor's office because it is free.

And there are abusers in the medical side. Ever here the term patient dumping?


We have a part of this going on already. The reason for the extreme cost of medical care today is because the government has such a hand in it and the insurance industry.

Hmmm I thought it was because the pharmies gouged, the bad doctors that cause medial liability problems, the lawyers the preditor the medical establishments.....yes the goverment is part of the problem but they are not the problem.


Here's what you liberals don't seem to understand... the government will always have a negative effect on everything that they get involved in. Therefore, the creators of the Constitution made it so that the federal government had a very small job and that the states and individuals would take care of the rest.

Yea you are right! The blacks in the South especially Mississippi are really pissed that the feds got involved 40 years ago.

A state goverment is just a corrupt as a federal goverment. At least with a Federal Goverment, you have a better chance at a "neutral" overseer. In fact recent events show the State goverments can be even more corrupt then the federal(California and Florida come to mind).


today, our federal government has shaken loose of the binding of the Constitution and has it's hand in every part of our personal and individual lives. From the bed you sleep on to the toilet you sit on, or as one talk show host put it, "from womb, to tomb." This is a travesty. And people are being trained to depend on government rather than depend on themselves.

Damn it. I can't seem to find Big Brother anywhere. ;)

We could start with all the socialist programs that have federal funding, National Endowment for the Arts sounds like a good place to start.

Art = Socialism???????

Damn school didn't tell me that!

:rolleyes:

Ahh so it's about money and not helping people?

No its about doing with you're private property (capital) as you decide with you're own freedom and right to do so.

Doctors are what maybe .00001% of our population while the people who would get a free ride off this are maybe 2% of our population. So see we protect our minorities. ;)

you cant argue logic with lemmings

Versus not being able to get it at all.

So socialized is bad how?
Let's say you need surgery STAT - sorry, but having to wait years for it won't cut it

No its about doing with you're private property (capital) as you decide with you're own freedom and right to do so.

-Buzzer sound-

Sorry it's not about that at all. Doctors don't have to publish their prices so they don't have to compete.

Doctors inflate their costs as they know insurence will reduce the chage.

So the right to "protect their capitol" is questionable.

Let's say you need surgery STAT - sorry, but having to wait years for it won't cut it

And you need this surgey to remain alive. Opps So sorry you can't pay for it. Awwwww.......

Let's say you need surgery STAT - sorry, but having to wait years for it won't cut it
so, you believe that all of our hospitals and doctors and nurses and private practices will compeltely disappear once the governemnt takes over the job the health insurance companies have? i dont think taking out a cars steering wheel prevents it from going still.

and there are waiting lists for surgeries that you need stat, have you ANY idea the waiting list for surgeries that need organ donors?

So the right to "protect their capitol" is questionable.

Oh boy, its about protecting "every citizens capital", do a poll and see how many Americans want to do this great idea. You are beating a dead horse with this issue.

Better yet from a nuetral pov you can just go off of this years election.

Oh boy, its about protecting "every citizens capital", do a poll and see how many Americans want to do this great idea. You are beating a dead horse with this issue.
well, like yourself, most citizens are too stupid to realise they would be paying no more than they are now. health insurance would be eliminated, thus you wouldnt be paying for that any more, that cost will go to the fed government,and sicne there are millions and millions of americans without health insurance, they will be taxed for the federal health insurance tax. and sicne health insurance is usually taken straight from your paycheck, you wouldnt even notice if we went to a federal system with taxes, it can be taken straight from your paycheck.

welcome to this side of the looking glass

Oh boy, its about protecting "every citizens capital", do a poll and see how many Americans want to do this great idea. You are beating a dead horse with this issue.

Better yet from a nuetral pov you can just go off of this years election.

So sorry. I will will not take the strawman bait.

We are talking about Doctors and not everybody else. Again they don't have to openly compete so.....

As I think about it.

Why don't we ask all amercians if they they think medicine costs too much as well.

Guess what they would say.....

well, like yourself, most citizens are too stupid to realise they would be paying no more than they are now. health insurance would be eliminated, thus you wouldnt be paying for that any more, that cost will go to the fed government,and sicne there are millions and millions of americans without health insurance, they will be taxed for the federal health insurance tax. and sicne health insurance is usually taken straight from your paycheck, you wouldnt even notice if we went to a federal system with taxes, it can be taken straight from your paycheck.

Ok well you find a way to make this work without cutting the defense budget.
Not even the 1.5 trillion hc plan under Kerry will sustain at the current levels.
If you want to cut the defense budget you can be sure Americans will not go for it.

We are talking about Doctors and not everybody else. Again they don't have to openly compete so.....

I forgot the Doctors were the only ones that got to vote in the usa. Silly me, I could of swore that any program that demands a cut to our defense budget don't ever come to the table. Programs can not cut our defense budget, peace time is what does that.

I forgot the Doctors were the only ones that got to vote in the usa. Silly me, I could of swore that any program that demands a cut to our defense budget don't ever come to the table. Programs can not cut our defense budget, peace time is what does that.

Ohhhh okayyyy?

Well if you want to move into the problems of military spending then that will have to be somebody else.

Ok well you find a way to make this work without cutting the defense budget.
Not even the 1.5 trillion hc plan under Kerry will sustain at the current levels.
If you want to cut the defense budget you can be sure Americans will not go for it.
you dont seem to understand the fact that money going into health insurance will be transferred to government health care program, and THEN SOME from th people without health care because they have to pay taxes. we wont have to cut SHIT.

Sounds like a decent arguement. Now back ground details.

What is your job title and where do you live. Also give us the average price of a house in your area.

The point is to make do with what you have. My job title is retired navy. I live in Salem, OR. The avg price is anywhere between $400-500/month for a 2 bedroom apartment, to $700-1200 for a single family house.

The point is to make do with what you have. My job title is retired navy. I live in Salem, OR. The avg price is anywhere between $400-500/month for a 2 bedroom apartment, to $700-1200 for a single family house.

Ahh ok. Needed a persepctive. Let's not go into the arguments of moving etc.

Where I live a 2 bedroom apartment runs about $1400-1600. A three bedroom house will run about $2500 and up. That depends on where you live of course. You can find cheaper but the neighborhood leaves a little to be desired.

Point is that some people that complain aren't always living above their means and in this area; it does take both parents to live depending on your job. In my case I make enough for my wife to remain home. Childcare costs used up most of her salary so we decided to take the hit and have her stay home. We have a happy kid so it was worth it. Hard at times but worth it.

Tell that to a four year old girl with lukemia.

No, it would be better to refer her to the Shriners Hospital.

It provides FREE HEALTHCARE. Without a nickel form the government.

We don't need the government to provide something that is always there.

(Oh, and if you are so for free helthcare, have you ever supported any of the private providors yourself, or do you just think it should be done with other people's money?)