Health Care: Right, Privilege or Responsibility

[Heat Mizer]

Do they? Everyone?

I'm not gonna get into a battle of my country is better than yours with you. I'm sure you feel the same way about Sweden than I do about the USA. That is not the subject of this discussion. For all intents and purposes lets just say that it is a figure of speech. Does that make you feel any better. I had no intention of offending anyones country. Swedish chicks are HOT.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

His education policies are some of the few things I don't fully with him about. However, I don't think it's a completely insane policy. When people hear "abolish public education" they automatically think that means people won't be able to afford it. What they don't consider is that Barr wants education to be controlled on a state or community level. This means less government control in our education system. This, in turn, means more choices for parents as to the education of their children. He's actually trying to make education more accessible for those in poorer communities (whether or not that would work according to plan is debatable). But let's just make it clear that Barr isn't trying to restrict education. It's not as though he doesn't want people to learn. He's right when he says that educational reform currently isn't working. Personally, I think he has much better policies than Obama or McCain in a lot of areas.

Tbh his education plan, however fucked-up it may be, utterly pales in comparison to how absolutely out of touch with reality he is about international relations. He would be a terrible, terrible President from a foreign policy standpoint, and I don't see how any possible disadvantages of McCain or Obama could outweigh that.

 

[The Ozzman]

how absolutely out of touch with reality he is about international relations. He would be a terrible, terrible President from a foreign policy standpoint, and I don't see how any possible disadvantages of McCain or Obama could outweigh that.

That's why the President has a Cabinet so they can advise him on things.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

duhr duhr

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah, but he doesn't have to listen to that advice. It's much preferable that we have a President who actually knows what the fuck he's doing without having to have people beat common sense into him - especially on something as important as foreign policy.

Barr is an idiot, plain and simple, and even if Obama isn't perfect (and McCain even less so), they're both still more competent at national governance than Barr.

 

[The Ozzman]

duhr duhr

Don't be an asshole

 

[Einherjar86]

As far as I know, Barr is isolationist, which is the foreign policy that I endorse. And he has military and foreign advisors to aid him in certain circumstances.

 

[AchrisK]

That's why the President has a Cabinet so they can advise him on things.

...or her.

So Sarah Palin really could be president if McCain kicks it.

 

[AchrisK]

i'm a noob

EDIT: Please disregard this comment. My son posted it while I was cooking him some hash browns. Little punk.

 

[The Ozzman]

...or her.

That bitch should be in the kitchen and nowhere near the White House. Stupid cunts and their equal rights bullshit.

 

[mutantllama]

i'm a noob

EDIT: Please disregard this comment. My son posted it while I was cooking him some hash browns. Little punk.

Tell your son he's awesome.

 

[Dak]

The problem is that not all wealth, even if acquired "legitimately" (which I assume you mean in compliance with the laws that apply to the person making the money) is deserved. Wealth which is acquired due to exclusive opportunity rather than merit is not deserved. I believe that an individual has no right to keep money which they earned due to an unfair advantage over others (and I have yet to see a convincing argument from either you or Dakryn to the contrary).

If this is your opinion then this will continue to go round and round. If I amassed X amount of wealth in my life and then passed it down, why don't my children have the right to that money? If they are able to properly manage it during their lifetime and then pass the sum/or increase down to their children and so on how is that wrong?

Your insistance that it's not "fair" to those with less assets is a non-issue. Life isn't fair. Tough shit. People have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Not a right to health, education, and happiness. Capitalism needs to be regulated to some degree to prevent unethical business practices, but thats a far cry from social program implementation.

Dakryn, you claim to be a Military man, correct?

You also believe or claim to believe that we as Americans, rich or poor. Do not have a right to any freebies. Everything must be worked for. Everything must be aquired through payment.

No healthcare, no public schooling, welfare, social security. No nothing.

Well then how do you justify our Military protection. We as Americans have the right to equal protection from our country. Doesn't matter whether we're rich or poor. Equal.

So according to your belief and the nonsense you have been gracing all of us with. The rich man should be allowed to pay for better protection. And some of us less fortunate should be left out in the cold? Does this also pertain to Law Enforcement? How bout Fire Protection?

We live in the greatest country in the world. Some of our policies and actions may be a little off at times. But we still live in the greatest country.

We help each other. If it was every man for himself. What kind of fucking zoo would we live in?

Something as vital in our lives as healthcare should be provided equally to every one of us. We are Americans.

How do I justify military, or law enforcement protection etc? Because its equally serviced across the board and it is protection, not a economic handout. The military and Law enforcement cannot be done privately for one reason because then you can easily have a conflict of interest. The military protects you from foreign threats, the police protect you from local threats. Social programs don't protect you from anything except a lower standard of living from bad decisions or maybe just unfortunate situations.No one has the right to be protected from themselves or life's curveballs. And by the way, the "rich" do pay for increased protection from the private sectors in many cases in case you didn't know.

I don't have a problem with people helping each other, I am all for it. It just shouldn't be forced by the government with the proverbial gun to your head.

To claim we shouldn't have a problem/discuss policies we don't like because we are the "greatest nation in the world" is a copout and a dangerous line of thought. You should not grade on a curve, it rewards being dumb, or in the case of a nation, leads to being ok with mediocrity.

I don't know what a gabacho is, but the point of my post was that, regardless of the justifications for welfare programs, I still feel an impulse toward saying fuck you to people like Dakryn who are stupid enough to say shit like "legalized theft" while ignoring the fact that they agreed to contribute to the US government's governing capabilities by paying taxes. Disagreeing with the government's means of governing and seeing it as a waste of your tax dollars is not the same thing as having your money stolen. Perhaps I'll lay out a better argument over the weekend, but don't count on it. I have a lot of work to catch up on, this is the only day I've allowed myself to fuck around on the internets this week.

So because I pay taxes I have no right to disagree with how it's spent? If there was a "New World" left to go sail to and start fresh I would do it as soon as my contract with the USMC runs out but there isn't unfortunantely. I only "agreed" to pay income taxes (I include the Medicare and SS deductions in that) by default because I don't have the option to opt out.
I said [legalized theft]. Robin-Hooding. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, its core concept IS theft.
It's always easier to spend someone else's money isn't? This self-righteous/serving attitude of entitlement to what is not yours sickens me.

As far as candidates go, the voting process is rigged anyway so regardles who you vote for it won't matter, but if it wasn't, to not vote for a third party candidate because "they won't win" is the dumbest arguement ever. Most Americans now would rather endorse one piece of shit or the other, than just say "no thanks" and be able to say "told you so" when things only get worse. Voting for who you support is not "throwing your vote away". It's letting your [voice] be heard.

Edit: BTW going on record and saying I think Sarah Palin is psycho. Just look in her eyes and tell me if you think I'm wrong.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

As far as I know, Barr is isolationist, which is the foreign policy that I endorse. And he has military and foreign advisors to aid him in certain circumstances.

Isolationism is bullshit. We need to have open, active dialogue with other countries in order to prevent tensions from increasing, and that's exactly what the U.N. provides. Even if the U.N. spends most of its time deadlocked over decisions, that doesn't make it useless. The mere fact that there are countries who hate each other having an open dialogue through it is very important.

Besides, even if isolationism weren't a bad idea in general, it would still be a terrible idea right now considering how many lunatic governments out there are trying to get nukes.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

x 1000000

 

[Heat Mizer]

Well wouldn't healthcare in a way be considered protection and not a handout? Healthcare is a neccesity and should not be determined based on ones salary. You are attempting to punish the hardworking but less fortunate for the actions of the lazy and advantage taking people.

 

[Einherjar86]

Isolationism is bullshit. We need to have open, active dialogue with other countries in order to prevent tensions from increasing, and that's exactly what the U.N. provides. Even if the U.N. spends most of its time deadlocked over decisions, that doesn't make it useless. The mere fact that there are countries who hate each other having an open dialogue through it is very important.

Besides, even if isolationism weren't a bad idea in general, it would still be a terrible idea right now considering how many lunatic governments out there are trying to get nukes.

The reason so many "lunatic" governments are trying to get nukes is because the U.S. has horded them and been the number one power in the world. Other countries feel threatened. If the U.S. hadn't meddled in the affairs of so many other countries we wouldn't be as hated as we are. Isolationism doesn't mean absolutely no contact. Isolationist means we communicate, but we don't get involved in the affairs of other countries. It means economic independence (this doesn't exclude trade with other countries, necessarily) and non-intervention.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well you must be talking about a different type of isolationism than Barr is, because he wants us to reduce our participation in the U.N.

And regardless of whether we "should have" messed around in other countries' affairs, the damage has been done now, and there are people out there who want to kill us. We can't just ignore that until a nuke goes off in our country.

 

[Dak]

Well wouldn't healthcare in a way be considered protection and not a handout? Healthcare is a neccesity and should not be determined based on ones salary. You are attempting to punish the hardworking but less fortunate for the actions of the lazy and advantage taking people.

How is not giving someone a handout punishment? Forcing a handout IS however a punishment for succeeding.

/agree with Einherjar86

Put the shoe on the other foot. Who gets to decide who is lunatic? Because they oppose us? Why is it "OK" for some countries to have nukes, but not others? Because the "Approved" countries won't use them? Well then whats the point of having them? Self defence against other countries with them? Then why don't all countries have that capability? The root of the whole thing is US imperialism, which is coming full circle and the results are going to very unpleasant when we no longer have the "bigger gun" whether it be economically or militarily.

 

[AchrisK]

The reason so many "lunatic" governments are trying to get nukes is because the U.S. has horded them and been the number one power in the world. Other countries feel threatened. If the U.S. hadn't meddled in the affairs of so many other countries we wouldn't be as hated as we are. Isolationism doesn't mean absolutely no contact. Isolationist means we communicate, but we don't get involved in the affairs of other countries. It means economic independence (this doesn't exclude trade with other countries, necessarily) and non-intervention.

From our perspective we believe that we would not act in an inappropriate way with nukes, so it is ok for us to have them. There are a certain number of other countries who probably feel similarly about us having them. But it is understandable, from nations who are not interested in the well being of the other citizens of the world, but only their own plans, that they would be bitter towards us for having them and trying to prohibit them for having them. I guess we just assume we are right, and we are big enough to afford that view. I tend to feel we are level headed and responsible with them, and that there are countries who, if they had them, would be a problem for the world. But I am an American.

 

[Heat Mizer]

How is not giving someone a handout punishment? Forcing a handout IS however a punishment for succeeding.

/agree with Einherjar86

Put the shoe on the other foot. Who gets to decide who is lunatic? Because they oppose us? Why is it "OK" for some countries to have nukes, but not others? Because the "Approved" countries won't use them? Well then whats the point of having them? Self defence against other countries with them? Then why don't all countries have that capability? The root of the whole thing is US imperialism, which is coming full circle and the results are going to very unpleasant when we no longer have the "bigger gun" whether it be economically or militarily.

You're missing my point. Let's agree to dis-agree. This conversation is going nowhere. Every one of us has our own beliefs and views on a particular issue and how it should be dealt with. You can't force yours on me and vice versa. I just found it ironic that someone performing a public service for the nation would look to deny another service that we should all be entitled to. Sounds hipocritical to me.