# Dems at it again



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

The democrats want to force everyone into socialized medicine and in a step to try to bring that closer to reality tried to cut the Medicare program that allows Medicare recipients the right to chose their own doctors. Then when the Senate Republicans prevented the cuts, the Dems claimed it was a dire problem caused by the Republicans.

Remind us again you liberals how it was bad for Republicans to when they ran Congress to supposedly not compromise but its GOOD when Democrats won't compromise.

Medicare fees to doctors fall Tuesday - Yahoo! News


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The democrats want to force everyone into socialized medicine and in a step to try to bring that closer to reality tried to cut the Medicare program that allows Medicare recipients the right to chose their own doctors. Then when the Senate Republicans prevented the cuts, the Dems claimed it was a dire problem caused by the Republicans.
> 
> Remind us again you liberals how it was bad for Republicans to when they ran Congress to supposedly not compromise but its GOOD when Democrats won't compromise.
> 
> Medicare fees to doctors fall Tuesday - Yahoo! News



When Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law by President Johnson in 1965, it fundamentally changed healthcare in the United States forever.  By 1972 when all disabled persons became eligible for coverage, private insurance had made practical adjustments and only the very wealthy among those eligible for the government programs could afford to opt out of them.

I believe that these government programs, for various reasons, provided incentive to stress the healthcare system and this is resulted in a good amount of the excessive increase in healthcare costs.  But millions are now 'trapped' in the system and reversing the negatives has far reaching consequences as is illustrated in the linked article.

Surely this at least gives pause for thought when we discuss putting all the rest of the healthcare system under government authority.  This certainly should be a warning shot across the bow.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2008)

Perceptive insight regarding the cost of health care, FoxFyre. You're spot on accurate in noting that medicade/medicare were the engines which kicked over the insane rise in health care costs.

I wish I could convince my more liberally minded chums that simply throwing money at the problem (in the form of single payer universal health care insurance) will actually make the rising cost of health care even worse in the medium run.


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2008)

I totally love threads like this where the person who started it and is whining about socialized medicine gets all his medical needs paid for by the government. 

lol... too funny.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

You're missing the point, Jillian.  The point is that once the government forces us into a system, we are often no longer free to make choices for ourselves and become at the mercy of whatever the government wants to do for us or to us.  And that is the scary part about all of this.


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> You're missing the point, Jillian.  The point is that once the government forces us into a system, we are often no longer free to make choices for ourselves and become at the mercy of whatever the government wants to do for us or to us.  And that is the scary part about all of this.



nothing scary about it any more than RGS getting all of his healthcare paid for, but saying others should have to go bankrupt to pay for their medical care.... and the politicians who made sure that THEY had health coverage but won't give it to constitutents.

Fact: as of about two years ago, there were 5 million more people who were uninsured than in 2000.

Fact: 50% of bankruptcies are the result of uninsured medical expenses.

Fact: 3 percent of the 8.3 million identity-theft victims in 2005 reported that thieves used their information to get medical care or supplies. http://www.nypost.com/seven/06292008/news/regionalnews/this_id_thefts_inconceivable_117777.htm


Fact: Enormous percentages of poor people use hospital emergency rooms as primary care physicians b/c they can't afford to go to doctors...that means a) when they finally get to the doctor, treatment is much more expensive; and b) THEY aren't paying for it... we are.

Fact: Hospitals charge more to uninsured people for health care than they do people WITH insurance.

Fact: We can't compete in the auto industry because every other industrialized nation provides health coverage for their population so companies don't have to add $2,000 to the cost of each auto for health insurance expenses.

Now THOSE things are what's scary.

Guess it's just what resonates for you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

You missed the ntire point, as usual. The democrats want to enslave whom ever qualifies into only seeing doctors THEY ( Te Government) approves of. 

Last I checked everything run BY the Government always costs MORE not less. It breeds laziness and incompetence when the Government runs the business. But go on and on about how letting the Government run health care will somehow be good this time.

Most of my medical is paid for by the VA/Tricare because I EARNED it. The rest is paid by Medicare because I paid into the system and being disabled I am entitled to draw from the system.

Let me know when you consider any other employer paid healthcare programs to be socialized Medicine.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 30, 2008)

jillian said:


> I totally love threads like this where the person who started it and is whining about socialized medicine gets all his medical needs paid for by the government.
> 
> lol... too funny.



Yeah... totally discount that a retired military person EARNED them with employment/years of actual service  


And you also forgot that FACT: The government is not your mommy. 

You are the only person personally responsible for you and your family. You want something, earn it. You want better health coverage, do what it takes to advance your career into a job and employer that has good benefits.


----------



## jillian (Jun 30, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yeah... totally discount that a retired military person EARNED them with employment/years of actual service
> 
> 
> And you also forgot that FACT: The government is not your mommy.
> ...



Because it's so good for a democratic society to have an underclass.... particularly one that's been fostered, at least in part, by the insurance lobby and the AMA....

good on!


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 30, 2008)

It is good for a freedom based society that is supposedly run by a democratic REPUBLIC to have freedom and personal responsibility at the forefront instead of a total control socialist system

Again... you are the only one responsible for you... if you are able bodied/able minded, you have what you need to get what you need and want.... it is just a matter of whether you WANT to do what it takes.... unfortunately, the Robin hood liberals think the world owes them, and all those like them, something for nothing


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yeah... totally discount that a retired military person EARNED them with employment/years of actual service



Just like almost every other American that pays into medicare, social security, and federal income tax.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You missed the ntire point, as usual. The democrats want to enslave whom ever qualifies into only seeing doctors THEY ( Te Government) approves of.
> *
> Last I checked everything run BY the Government always costs MORE not less. It breeds laziness and incompetence when the Government runs the business. But go on and on about how letting the Government run health care will somehow be good this time.*
> 
> ...





Is that how you feel about the MILITARY and POLICE?  


Hey, we have a Blackwater free market option now, right buddy?  You know, since EVERYTHING ran by the gov is pathetic like that....


right?


*Why do you support Socialized Militaries and Socialized public safety, RGS?*


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Just like almost every other American that pays into medicare, social security, and federal income tax.



Yes... and medicare/medicaid for those who are proven to be unable to take care of themselves is a good thing... Social Security (at the time it was thought of and before it was raped for gain) was a nice idea at the time.... and federal income tax is there to pay for national defense and the running of government for the creation, enforcement, and interpretation of law... the federal government was NEVER set up to be a babysitter for those who refuse to take care of themselves, or refuse to take personal responsibility for their own well being


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

In my opinion, the issue here is NOT what the problems are but rather a) what caused them so we don't continue to cause them and b) what is the most effective and efficient means of addressing them.  In my opinion, the government should restrict itself to that which cannot be done more effectively/efficiently/economically in the private sector and otherwise should butt out.  A government that can assume the power to remedy all human problems can assume the power to do anything it wants.  I choose not to assign that kind of power to the government.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yeah... totally discount that a retired military person EARNED them with employment/years of actual service


 
It cracks me up when military retired personal wax poetic about how wonderful the free market is for everyone else, too.

Of course it's wonderful socialism for military retired.

they enjoy 100% socialized medicine while 50,000,000 Americans go without in the capitalist system they're stuck with, too, eh?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yes... and medicare/medicaid for those who are proven to be unable to take care of themselves is a good thing... Social Security (at the time it was thought of and before it was raped for gain) was a nice idea at the time.... and federal income tax is there to pay for national defense and the running of government for the creation, enforcement, and interpretation of law... the federal government was NEVER set up to be a babysitter for those who refuse to take care of themselves, or refuse to take personal responsibility for their own well being



Like the retired military?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Is that how you feel about the MILITARY and POLICE?
> 
> 
> Hey, we have a Blackwater free market option now, right buddy?  You know, since EVERYTHING ran by the gov is pathetic like that....
> ...



Apples and Oranges, retard. But do play on like it means something. Ohh and totally discount the fact that the Military is a specific power given to the Government where as health care is NOT. You are an idiot.

By the way, yes the military and the police are badly financed. If you knew anything about them you would know about the inherient money problems they have because of a Government mind set that PREVENTS saving money.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Like the retired military?



Moron. The Military Retiree EARNED an agree upon retirement package based on his or her service to this country IN the military. They willingly surrender part of the rights and privileges and agree to risk life and limb if called on in defense or just training with the Military.

People like you are to stupid to even discuss the issue with.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Moron. The Military Retiree EARNED an agree upon retirement package based on his or her service to this country IN the military. They willingly surrender part of the rights and privileges and agree to risk life and limb if called on in defense or just training with the Military.
> 
> People like you are to stupid to even discuss the issue with.



I've heard tell of people that willingly pay into the social security, medicare, and income tax fund. It's called being an American.


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I've heard tell of people that willingly pay into the social security, medicare, and income tax fund. It's called being an American.



Of course said "willing" person will go to jail (do not pass GO; do not collect $200) if they DON'T pay .....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2008)

Lol.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

CSM said:


> Of course said "willing" person will go to jail (do not pass GO; do not collect $200) if they DON'T pay .....



No rules in the military?


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> No rules in the military?



Find the post where I said that?  

By the way, I was merely pointing out that your willing taxpayer has a choice. Though when a choice is made under duress, one has to wonder about the "willing" part of your assertion. I suppose it is conceivable that there are some who would pay taxes even if they were not threatened with jail.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

I wish I could _willingly_ pay to the government the amount for which I think I get my money's worth.  How about we see if we can get that kind of system set up?

And I would sure like to be a fly on the wall watching those folks who so _willingly _ pay into the system because they are Americans to see if they would write out those checks if it was voluntary.

However, I do believe the government quite readily accepts donations from all citizens who honestly do believe they haven't paid enough and choose to write out an extra check to the government.  I really recommend that to folks who think we should all willingly pay more.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> No rules in the military?



Look you stupid shit. A military retiree EARNED the retirement by serving x number of years, surrendering rights and freedoms and agreeing to, if called on, DIE for their Country. Claiming it is a hand out, or socialism or not "doing for themselves" is the most idiotic comment I ever here.

You are aware I hope that people can get social security payments without having paid much at all or in some case anything at all, into the system? If they have paid then it is fine and dandy they collect when allowed by the system. But it is not BY choice people participate in SS. Nor do people CHOSE freely to pay taxes.

Using your logic ANY retirement system is just a freebie and no one earned the money they get in retirement benefits from those programs. Or are you going to now claim JUST Military retirement is unearned?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

CSM said:


> Find the post where I said that?
> 
> By the way, I was merely pointing out that your willing taxpayer has a choice. Though when a choice is made under duress, one has to wonder about the "willing" part of your assertion. I suppose it is conceivable that there are some who would pay taxes even if they were not threatened with jail.



You didn't say it. I'm just pointing out we all make choices...to be in the military, to be an American...and both choices have rules.

I think I just feel uncomfortable with the attitude that the military is somehow better than everyone else. Not that you've claimed that, it's just something I see often on message boards.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> I wish I could _willingly_ pay to the government the amount for which I think I get my money's worth.  How about we see if we can get that kind of system set up?
> 
> And I would sure like to be a fly on the wall watching those folks who so _willingly _ pay into the system because they are good citizens to see if they would write out those checks if it was voluntary.
> 
> However, I do believe the government quite readily accepts donations from all citizens who honestly do believe they haven't paid enough and choose to write out an extra check to the government.  I really recommend that to folks who think we should all willingly pay more.



It would be nice if we only paid for things we approved of, but it isn't feasible.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look you stupid shit. A military retiree EARNED the retirement by serving x number of years, surrendering rights and freedoms and agreeing to, if called on, DIE for their Country. Claiming it is a hand out, or socialism or not "doing for themselves" is the most idiotic comment I ever here.
> 
> You are aware I hope that people can get social security payments without having paid much at all or in some case anything at all, into the system? If they have paid then it is fine and dandy they collect when allowed by the system. But it is not BY choice people participate in SS. Nor do people CHOSE freely to pay taxes.
> 
> Using your logic ANY retirement system is just a freebie and no one earned the money they get in retirement benefits from those programs. Or are you going to now claim JUST Military retirement is unearned?



And people can join the military, never see combat, and get bennies. What is your point? Being in the military is a CHOICE. Get back to me when it becomes mandatory.


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> You didn't say it. I'm just pointing out we all make choices...to be in the military, to be an American...and both choices have rules.
> 
> I think I just feel uncomfortable with the attitude that the military is somehow better than everyone else. Not that you've claimed that, it's just something I see often on message boards.



Exactly. The difference in this case is that anyone who signs an elistment contract does so willingly ... truly willingly. You dont go to jail if you don't sign that contract.

Get a job and refuse to pay taxes and see where that gets you. Trying to "compare the rules" is a stretch at best.


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> And people can join the military, never see combat, and get bennies. What is your point? Being in the military is a CHOICE. Get back to me when it becomes mandatory.



You made the statement...how about you get back to us when paying taxes becomes voluntary. Just in case you forgot what you posted:

"I've heard tell of people that willingly pay into the social security, medicare, and income tax fund. It's called being an American."

Today 05:26 PM


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

CSM said:


> Exactly. The difference in this case is that anyone who signs an elistment contract does so willingly ... truly willingly. You dont go to jail if you don't sign that contract.
> 
> Get a job and refuse to pay taxes and see where that gets you. Trying to "compare the rules" is a stretch at best.



Okay. It is true you don't sign a contract to be an American. But still, it does come with responsibilities.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

CSM said:


> You made the statement...how about you get back to us when paying taxes becomes voluntary. Just in case you forgot what you posted:
> 
> "I've heard tell of people that willingly pay into the social security, medicare, and income tax fund. It's called being an American."
> 
> Today 05:26 PM



I didn't say _everyone_.

We could, as a people, stop paying taxes. Why do you think we haven't?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It would be nice if we only paid for things we approved of, but it isn't feasible.



That isn't the point.  The post I was responding to suggested there are people who pay willingly because that is what an American does or whatever. I just strongly question how much any of us would pay if it was voluntary, and I get really weary of those who proclaim their compassion for others so long as the rest of us are required to pay for it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> And people can join the military, never see combat, and get bennies. What is your point? Being in the military is a CHOICE. Get back to me when it becomes mandatory.



It is a CONTRACT you RETARD. You have to meet the requirements set forth by the military to EARN a retirement. Just like in a civilian job you have to EARN a retirement from what ever business or career you chose that has a retirement plan.

You are clueless.


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I didn't say _everyone_.
> 
> We could, as a people, stop paying taxes. Why do you think we haven't?



Yes we could....perhaps that little "jail sentence" thingy has a bearing on it.  

Personally, I think we as taxpayers should get to select where we want our personal tax remittance spent. A list of selections would be nice. All mine would go to those military folks who signed a contract WILLINGLY. Not one penny of mine would go to medicare, social security, welfare, road construction or maintenance or any of that crap. I might select one of the intel agencies every five years or so.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> And people can join the military, never see combat, and get bennies. What is your point? Being in the military is a CHOICE. Get back to me when it becomes mandatory.



The Constitution mandates a national defense and thank God there are dedicated and capable young men and women willing to put their lives on the line to provide it.  It doesn't matter whether they actually see combat; they are willing to see combat when they commit to the service.  And for their service which allows the rest of us to pursue other vocations, they are paid considerably less in salary and benefits than are people in comparable jobs in the private sector.  The very least their country owes them is the benefits that are included as part of the contract for services rendered.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> The Constitution mandates a national defense and thank God there are dedicated and capable young men and women willing to put their lives on the line to provide it.  It doesn't matter whether they actually see combat; they are willing to see combat when they commit to the service.  And for their service which allows the rest of us to pursue other vocations, they are paid considerably less in salary and benefits than are people in comparable jobs in the private sector.  The very least their country owes them is the benefits that are included as part of the contract for services rendered.



Don't give her facts, she will just ignore them. Leftoids hate the military and have so many ignorant concepts about it, it simply boogles the mind.

Some one commits 20 YEARS of their life to a job with low pay, bad benefits and VERY crappy work conditions and hours, never knowing when they will risk their life in a training exersize , a routine deployment , Brush fire conflict or a War. More military people die every year due to training then die in Iraq in a year. The suicide rate is higher as well even with no war.

Further you can invest your life in this career and the Government can decide, like it did in the 90's, they just don't need you anymore and you get nothing at all. Or they can decide you do not meet the requirements when you try to reenlist. Which you generally have to do every 4 years. Or even better they can break you physically or mentally and decide you are not broken enough to rate retirement at all but you are to broken to stay in.

I hear this shit from a lot of Liberal pinheads that have not one clue about the military. And it pisses me off to no end when I hear it.

My Dad spent 22 years in the Army, served two tours in Viet Nam. He got a wound there that eventually cost him BOTH his legs long after he had retired. Pinheads PISS me off.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

CSM said:


> Yes we could....perhaps that little "jail sentence" thingy has a bearing on it.
> 
> Personally, I think we as taxpayers should get to select where we want our personal tax remittance spent. A list of selections would be nice. All mine would go to those military folks who signed a contract WILLINGLY. Not one penny of mine would go to medicare, social security, welfare, road construction or maintenance or any of that crap. I might select one of the intel agencies every five years or so.



How about firefighters, police, and people that bitch and moan and keep our civil rights on the agenda...they all serve the country as well, and willingly. In fact, just by contributing to the economy we all serve the country, no?

I would be happy to change some things, like making people that get welfare earn it somehow. But for everyone else, I'm not too thrilled with deciding who is more deserving.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> The Constitution mandates a national defense and thank God there are dedicated and capable young men and women willing to put their lives on the line to provide it.  It doesn't matter whether they actually see combat; they are willing to see combat when they commit to the service.  And for their service which allows the rest of us to pursue other vocations, they are paid considerably less in salary and benefits than are people in comparable jobs in the private sector.  The very least their country owes them is the benefits that are included as part of the contract for services rendered.



I don't disagree with that. I disagree with RGS's idea that somehow one group of Americans are more deserving of medical care.


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> How about firefighters, police, and people that bitch and moan and keep our civil rights on the agenda...they all serve the country as well, and willingly. In fact, just by contributing to the economy we all serve the country, no?
> 
> I would be happy to change some things, like making people that get welfare earn it somehow. But for everyone else, I'm not too thrilled with deciding who is more deserving.



Nope, no police, no firefighters, no civil rights. Screw the economy; you can't survive without all that stuff...too bad...I guess yer gonna die. Survival of the fittest!


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> My Dad spent 22 years in the Army, served two tours in Viet Nam. He got a wound there that eventually cost him BOTH his legs long after he had retired. Pinheads PISS me off.



Mine didn't lose his legs but he got drafted and injured and had to fight for thirty years to get any compensation from the Veteran's Administration. And being on medicare saved his life.

He's the one that taught me that he wasn't better than someone that didn't serve. 

So blow it out your ear, retard.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't disagree with that. I disagree with RGS's idea that somehow one group of Americans are more deserving of medical care.



Look you fucking MORON. I never said one group was more "deserving" I stated Military retirees EARNED what they get. They do not get hand outs from the Government, nor socialism at work, Each and every vet that retired or receives VA compensation EARNED it. They earned it by the service they WILLINGLY provided to their country. It is part of the CONTRACT they made when they signed up, you fucking IDIOT.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

CSM said:


> Nope, no police, no firefighters, no civil rights. Screw the economy; you can't survive without all that stuff...too bad...I guess yer gonna die. Survival of the fittest!



A libertarian, I presume?


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't disagree with that. I disagree with RGS's idea that somehow one group of Americans are more deserving of medical care.



So, everyone should get military benefits even if they never serve in the military? I should be able to draw welfare regardless of how much money I make in salary? Food stamps for all regardless of need? After all, who is to say one group of Americans is more deserving than any other? We should all draw a salary whether or not we work? 

I like the way you think!  so when will you be sending me your address so I can come live at your house? Obviously, you don't deserve to live there more than I do.


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> A libertarian, I presume?



Nope...anarchist.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look you fucking MORON. I never said one group was more "deserving" I stated Military retirees EARNED what they get. They do not get hand outs from the Government, nor socialism at work, Each and every vet that retired or receives VA compensation EARNED it. They earned it by the service they WILLINGLY provided to their country. It is part of the CONTRACT they made when they signed up, you fucking IDIOT.



People that pay social security and medicare earn it as well.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2008)

CSM said:


> So, everyone should get military benefits even if they never serve in the military? I should be able to draw welfare regardless of how much money I make in salary? Food stamps for all regardless of need? After all, who is to say one group of Americans is more deserving than any other? We should all draw a salary whether or not we work?
> 
> I like the way you think!  so when will you be sending me your address so I can come live at your house? Obviously, you don't deserve to live there more than I do.



Jebus, where did I say any of that?


----------



## CSM (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Jebus, where did I say any of that?



You didn't. I was merely extending your logic to something I liked. No one group of American's is more deserving than any other....wasn't that the gist of your position?

You posted:

"I disagree with RGS's idea that somehow one group of Americans are more deserving of medical care."

Why restrict the logic to just medical care? What about housing, food, income, luxuries and other stuff like that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> People that pay social security and medicare earn it as well.



Only until I can get Congress to get rid of the illegal programs our Government pays for. But the whole point of this thread, you idiot, is that the Dems want to restrict those on Medicare to doctors THE GOVERNMENT picks.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't disagree with that. I disagree with RGS's idea that somehow one group of Americans are more deserving of medical care.



All people, military or civilian, are deserving of medical care that is included in their contractual agreement for services rendered.  When it is not included in the contractual agreement there is no presumption that somebody deserves medical care at the expense of government or anybody else.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Like the retired military?




Hmmm.... you saying the military did not EARN their benefits?....  nowhere even close to the handouts to the lazy bums who want the government to provide them everything they want for nothing

typical dumbass liberal with nothing more than a smarmy remark... all the while having absolutely NO clue


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> You didn't. I was merely extending your logic to something I liked. No one group of American's is more deserving than any other....wasn't that the gist of your position?
> 
> You posted:
> 
> ...



I didn't realize the retired military personnel were receiving all of that.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I didn't realize the retired military personnel were receiving all of that.



They aren't. Obviously your reading comprehension needs some work.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> They aren't. Obviously your reading comprehension needs some work.


It might. Still working on the coffee.

We were discussing health care and the fact that the military receives it. Not housing, food, or these other things you are bringing up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It might. Still working on the coffee.
> 
> We were discussing health care and the fact that the military receives it. Not housing, food, or these other things you are bringing up.



The military receives it because of a CONTRACT to work. Retirees receive it because of THAT Contract. Once again dumbshit remind us how all retirement benefits earned by everyone are welfare handouts, unearned and socialism at work.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It might. Still working on the coffee.
> 
> We were discussing health care and the fact that the military receives it. Not housing, food, or these other things you are bringing up.



True enough. You are ignoring the your own assertion in that discussion that no one American is more deserving of health care than any other. I am saying that such logic could apply to other things as well. 

You are also ignoring what other posters are telling you. Military personnel EARN that health care as part of their contract while other Americans (non military) do not.

I understand your tactic of deflection. It is much easier for you to lead the pony around the ring than it is to try to actually ride the damned thing!


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

I am saying that if you give it to one group you should give it to another.  

Certainly most Americans EARN medicare by paying into it all of their lives, no?


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> People that pay social security and medicare earn it as well.



Well, now I am confused how does payment for services (willingly or unwillingly) equal earned? Is it your contention then that as long as something is paid for one has earned it? If so, then once more, I like your way of thinking. By reciprocity, if one does not pay for a service then one does not earn it. In my opinion, if one does not earn it, then one does not deserve it. I shall use that in my arguments against universal health care, welfare, and other social programs I do not like.

On the other hand, you seem to be espousing the philosophy that all are deserving, regardless of amount of individual effort or expense.  If so, then once more, please send me your home address so I can move in at the earliest possible moment. I expect that you will house, feed and cloth me despite the fact that I will contribute absolutely nothing to your household. I will, however, be very appreciative as long as it doesn't cost me anything more than verbalization of said appreciation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I am saying that if you give it to one group you should give it to another.
> 
> Certainly most Americans EARN medicare by paying into it all of their lives, no?



No one GIVES health care to military or military retirees, they EARN it via a CONTRACT for services rendered.

No one is denying Medicare to those that are legally able to use it. Well except the Democrats and their insistance that they get to chose your doctor for you.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I am saying that if you give it to one group you should give it to another.
> 
> ...



Why?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I will, however, be very appreciative as long as it doesn't cost me anything more than verbalization of said appreciation.



I fear that even that obligation would be too much for an anarchist. 

You are projecting some lefty stereotype onto me. I haven't stated, nor do I believe, that the current system of welfare in this country is fair or right.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I fear that even that obligation would be too much for an anarchist.
> 
> You are projecting some lefty stereotype onto me. I haven't stated, nor do I believe, that the current system of welfare in this country is fair or right.



No you think the Government should just provide healthcare to any and everyone whether they earned it or not.

You ignore the fact the military and its retirees EARNED the retirement benefits they get due to a CONTRACT to work.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I fear that even that obligation would be too much for an anarchist.
> 
> You are projecting some lefty stereotype onto me. I haven't stated, nor do I believe, that the current system of welfare in this country is fair or right.



I wasn't talking about welfare. 

I am talking about your position that all groups/individuals are equally deserving. It is my contention that I DESERVE to live in your house, eat your food, have you provide clothing as you do for yourself based upon your assertion (quote: "I am saying that if you give it to one group you should give it to another."). You can add that I expect you to pay for my health care as well since I want to keep this discussion on your choice of topics.

The whole point I am trying to make here is that your assertion that all are equally "deserving" is simply pure, unadulterated bullshit.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No you think the Government should just provide healthcare to any and everyone whether they earned it or not.



Wrong.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I wasn't talking about welfare.
> 
> I am talking about your position that all groups/individuals are equally deserving. It is my contention that I DESERVE to live in your house, eat your food, have you provide clothing as you do for yourself based upon your assertion (quote: "I am saying that if you give it to one group you should give it to another."). You can add that I expect you to pay for my health care as well since I want to keep this discussion on your choice of topics.
> 
> The whole point I am trying to make here is that your assertion that all are equally "deserving" is simply pure, unadulterated bullshit.



I'm pretty sure I didn't state that.


----------



## editec (Jul 1, 2008)

The military medicine is just another example of socialism at work.

Money is taken from citizens (regardless of whether they agree or not) to pay for military medicine.

People who spend a career in the military that try to tell we who are civilians about how grand free market capitalist medicine is, are simple speaking with the authority of people who have never had to live with the consequences of a capitalist economy free market medicine.

Now I happen to think that the guys in the service do EARN their health care bennies,* of course*.

Likewise I think the citizens who work and paid taxes to keep those guys in uniform ALSO earned the same health care bennies that our boy and girls in uniform did.

As to the canard that people in the service aren't paid well?

That's not really true for most of billets.

Those in the service who have highly valuable skills who stay in uniform are underpaid, but that's not really most of the billets in the services.

Damned few cooks, for example, in the civilian world have the combined salary, benefits, health care benefits, and retirement packages thy'd get cooking in uniform. Same with most jobs that are done in uniform.

This whole myth 00 that people in the service are terribly paid, is just that, a myth. *That used to be true but no longer, folks.*

Often a lifer's career is actually quite cushy compared to what they'd be getting if they were doing what they do in the civie world.

And sure there's combat...for about 1 in 40 people in the service.

The rest of the people in uniform are as unlikely to get shot as you or I are. 

But when some self proclaiming retired lifer starts whining about _socialist _social security while they'vee sucking at the teat of a socialistic military their entire adult lives

Well that just sorta cracks me up/

Tell it to the marines, thinks this old salt.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

Well said, Editec.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

editec said:


> The military medicine is just another example of socialism at work.
> 
> Money is taken from citizens (regardless of whether they agree or not) to pay for military medicine.
> 
> ...



Do you even THINK before you type this drivel?

A national military is nothing in terms of a socialist ideal.... Perhaps you should actually read the original documents of this republic and see what the government is actually CHARGED to do. One of the most primary being defense of the country. A.K.A. a MILITARY....

Now your civilians do EARN the money that they pay in taxes... but one small detail you leave out... they are not working for the military or the federal government unless they are actually civvy employees of the government... and when they are they are also given medical benefits in their benefits package....

The socialist crapola you and your ilk promote has nothing to do with people in a free society EARNING the benefits you are calling for everyone else in the country to pay for thru the distribution thru the ineffective federal bureaucracy system... if you and your little leftist buddies want something, go out and get a job that provides it in compensation... EARN IT... or learn to earn even more money with a skill and they pay for your own health insurance.... nah... that would be something like work and not putting the responsibility on someone else's shoulders

And you would know shit about what risks each military person goes thru...

pathetic leftists


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I'm pretty sure I didn't state that.



PULEEEEEZE! Now you are ignoring your own statements which I was very careful to put in quotes.  From your various posts:

"I disagree with RGS's idea that somehow one group of Americans are more deserving of medical care."

"I am saying that if you give it to one group you should give it to another."

If you did not intend to make those statements, then you need to have a serious talk with your fingers. They seem to be acting without benefit of your brain being engaged.


----------



## editec (Jul 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Do you even THINK before you type this drivel?


 
Yes, as matter of fact I do. 



> A national military is nothing in terms of a socialist ideal....


 
What the hell is a "social ideal" DD?




> Perhaps you should actually read the original documents of this republic and see what the government is actually CHARGED to do. One of the most primary being defense of the country. A.K.A. a MILITARY....


 
Yes, that's one of the things that our consitution mandates, true. So?



> Now your civilians do EARN the money that they pay in taxes...


 
I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean. In fact I doubt you do either.




> but one small detail you leave out... they are not working for the military or the federal government unless they are actually civvy employees of the government... and when they are they are also given medical benefits in their benefits package....


 
What does that have to do with anything I've penned? Do try to stay on topic, shall we? 



> The socialist crapola you and your ilk


 
I'm sorry...I don't have an ilk, socialist or otherwise. My team is merely the team seeking to find truth in a world of lies.




> promote has nothing to do with people in a free society EARNING the benefits you are calling for everyone else in the country to pay for thru the distribution thru the ineffective federal bureaucracy system...


 
Run on sentences indicate run on thoughts, chum. 

Try to think what you mean to say before putting that jumble of incoherence that you think passes for thinking into ASCII.




> if you and your little leftist buddies want something, go out and get a job that provides it in compensation... EARN IT... or learn to earn even more money with a skill and they pay for your own health insurance.... nah... that would be something like work and not putting the responsibility on someone else's shoulders


 
bla bla bla bla blaaaather. 

While I have no doubt you feel justified in moaning and bitching, the above doesn't in any way address my points.

Do get a clue, DD.

Read the content of the post _first, _opine on the content of that post _after._



> And you would know shit about what risks each military person goes thru...


 
Presumptive puppy. Each military person faces risks depending on their billet and station. Are you truly so clueless about the real military?



> pathetic leftists


 
Ah yes, the flag surrender of the idiots who imagine themselves to be conservatives and patriots 

When lost, assume that the people whose thoughts are beyond your limited ability to understand must be leftists.

The anti- intellectual refuge of angry white male morons of our age.

Call anything you don't understand or like either liberalism or socialism.

Go read a book, dude.

You don't know appear to know_ anything, or_ if you do, you clearly don't know how to take your knowledge and covert it into words.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

editec said:


> The military medicine is just another example of socialism at work.
> 
> Money is taken from citizens (regardless of whether they agree or not) to pay for military medicine.
> 
> ...



You are either truly trolling, willfully ignorant or simply naive.

The American people PAY for service. A contract is signed with those providing that service (specifically, those that enlist in the military). Part of that contract is a benefits package afforded the signee. If the citizens of the US should decide that the package is too generous, then by all means they should have it changed.

I presume you are aware that the military does not pay service members based on "billets" but on pay grade. An E-4 cook makes the same as an E-4 infantry man. By the way, that E-4 cook does more than just cook. He still has to maintain personal gear, participate in other training and operations (guard duty, quick reaction force, man the perimeter, etc.) which are things civilian cooks do not have to do. If all an enlisted cook had to do was cook, then I would agree that the pay is equitable if not better. Considering the taskings that a military cook (or any other "billet" you choose to discuss) must perform beyond the actuall act of cooking itself, the pay is rather low.

As for lifers, I will also presume you know that a mid level manager in a civilian company is not usually required to maintain firearms proficiency, meet physical standards (that most civilians would consider extreme) and perform duties outside the actual job of mangement such as staff duty, plan and conduct training, etc.

Regarding the point about getting shot: in the type of warfare the military is engaged in these days, there is no front line. It is called asymetrical warfare. There is no "front line". Cooks, supply clerks, infantrymen, and all others in the theater of war are equally at risk.

Equating a civilian job to a military occupation is not only demeaning to both but disengenous as well.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> PULEEEEEZE! Now you are ignoring your own statements which I was very careful to put in quotes.  From your various posts:
> 
> "I disagree with RGS's idea that somehow one group of Americans are more deserving of medical care."
> 
> ...



I can't deny that doesn't happen. I'll try again.

I don't think that we should be giving one group socialized medicine and not another because of their career choice. That doesn't mean I approve of socialized medicine, I'm actually not sure if I do or not since no one has ever laid out a clear plan for it. I'm more saying they are equally undeserving than that they are equally deserving.

But seriously, if we can make it work for one group why can't we make it work for all?


----------



## WhoisJohnGault (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> I totally love threads like this where the person who started it and is whining about socialized medicine gets all his medical needs paid for by the government.
> 
> lol... too funny.


If you believe that socialized health care will benefit all, you are sadly mistaken.  I have a friend from Britain whose mother still lives there and he tells me how horrible it is.  Basically, their healthcare is only good for normal maladies, sore throats, measles..whatever, minor fractures etc.   For anything important, you wait....and you wait and wait.......did you ever notice how bad the Brit's teeth are?  Wonder why??? By the time they get to you, you have either died, gone elsewhere and paid for the treatment out of your pocket or given up.


----------



## jillian (Jul 1, 2008)

WhoisJohnGault said:


> If you believe that socialized health care will benefit all, you are sadly mistaken.  I have a friend from Britain whose mother still lives there and he tells me how horrible it is.  Basically, their healthcare is only good for normal maladies, sore throats, measles..whatever, minor fractures etc.   For anything important, you wait....and you wait and wait.......did you ever notice how bad the Brit's teeth are?  Wonder why??? By the time they get to you, you have either died, gone elsewhere and paid for the treatment out of your pocket or given up.




a) you are talking about a situation where medical care is provided by the government. no one is talking about that here. we're talking about _health insurance_.

And everyone I know who gets their care paid for, like in Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and, yes, even England, is pretty happy with what they have and they know if they need more, they can go out of pocket. 

So I think a means of providing people with health _coverage_ (since that's what we're talking about) is imperative to deal with the other issues I raised.

Interestingly, you don't address those. Don't you think those issues need to be addressed?


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I can't deny that doesn't happen. I'll try again.
> 
> I don't think that we should be giving one group socialized medicine and not another because of their career choice. That doesn't mean I approve of socialized medicine, I'm actually not sure if I do or not since no one has ever laid out a clear plan for it. I'm more saying they are equally undeserving than that they are equally deserving.
> 
> But seriously, if we can make it work for one group why can't we make it work for all?



You see, you persist in calling it "socialized medicine" when it is not. That is the crux of the discussion thus far. The American people offer those enlisting in the military a *fee for service *along with an accompanying benefits package. An individual has the choice of signing that contract or not. That is hardly "socialized". If the American citizens decide that the current benefits package is too generous then they can (and do) change it. The individual then has the option of accepting the new package when they enlist/re-enlist or not joining/separating from service.

*"But seriously, if we can make it work for one group why can't we make it work for all?"*

AHHH different question all together!  Generally, part of the benefits package for employees at mid size to large corporations is a health care package that the empoyer makes available to employees. Again, hardly "socialized" medicine. Some packages are better than others but most involve some kind of co-pay. Some employees (usually the younger ones) choose not to take that package with the presumption that they are healthy and will stay that way for the forseeable future. In any case, a service is rendered by the employee. Part of that fee is a benefit which includes health care.

When you say "socialized medicine" the implication (to me at least) is that health care should be provided *WHETHER OR NOT A SERVICE IS PROVIDED IN RETURN.* It is obvious to me that such is not the case for those in the military or those that have retired from the military.

In any case, the real question is what do we do about those who do not have the opportunity to avail themselves of such a health care package? I would suggest that this subject is an entire thread in itself (which has been discussed ad nauseaum on this board in the past).


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> I totally love threads like this where the person who started it and is whining about socialized medicine gets all his medical needs paid for by the government.
> 
> lol... too funny.



So then, Jillian, are we to presume from this statement that all government workers should not have health care as part of their benefits package (including the military)?

It is my opinion (see how nicely I placed that caveat?) that if the American people pay for a service (military or government jobs, per say) and accompany that pay with a benfits package, then it is not "socialized medicine."  

As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, should the citizens of this country decide that military service is not valuable enough to have health care included as a benefit, then they should remove said benefit from the contract the offer to prospective government employees.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> You see, you persist in calling it "socialized medicine" when it is not. That is the crux of the discussion thus far. The American people offer those enlisting in the military a *fee for service *along with an accompanying benefits package. An individual has the choice of signing that contract or not. That is hardly "socialized". If the American citizens decide that the current benefits package is too generous then they can (and do) change it. The individual then has the option of accepting the new package when they enlist/re-enlist or not joining/separating from service.
> 
> *"But seriously, if we can make it work for one group why can't we make it work for all?"*
> 
> ...



I disagree. If taxpayers are paying for it, it is socialized medicine whether it is to fulfill a contractual agreement or not.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, should the citizens of this country decide that military service is not valuable enough to have health care included as a benefit, then they should remove said benefit from the contract the offer to prospective government employees.



Yep, same with any other social program.


----------



## jillian (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> So then, Jillian, are we to presume from this statement that all government workers should not have health care as part of their benefits package (including the military)?



Why would you make that assumption? I do believe that *I'm* the one talking about how stupid it is that a country with our wealth has 50% of its bankruptcies because people can't pay for medical care.



> It is my opinion (see how nicely I placed that caveat?) that if the American people pay for a service (military or government jobs, per say) and accompany that pay with a benfits package, then it is not "socialized medicine."



Interesting how every industrialized nation makes sure their populace can get medical care but if we have medical  INSURANCE, that's socialized?

Silliness..... 




> As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, should the citizens of this country decide that military service is not valuable enough to have health care included as a benefit, then they should remove said benefit from the contract the offer to prospective government employees.



I have no issues with military or government types getting health coverage. You're the ones who don't want others to have what you do.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

editec said:


> Yes, as matter of fact I do.


Evidently not





> What the hell is a "social ideal" DD?


The ideals of SOCIALISM... not social.... slight difference that your feeble mind might want to learn... and as for the socialist ideals... hmmm... possibly that property belongs to the community and should be distributed by that community... because everyone is OWED an equal share....






> Yes, that's one of the things that our consitution mandates, true. So?


Hmmm.. never knew our constitution was a socialist document... never knew military units responsible for protection and offense in the past under monarchies and other systems were socialist in nature.... yet you tried to lump our national military in as a socialist system... interesting 





> I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean. In fact I doubt you do either.


 try to follow along... what people pay in taxes is a result of what they earn as income.... keep paying attention, I know it must be hard for you.... just because they earn their income and pay taxes into the federal government for the government to be able to operate, does not mean that they are owed individual services from the government.... there is a big difference between PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare and providing the individual welfare






> What does that have to do with anything I've penned? Do try to stay on topic, shall we?


Ahh... but we were/are on the topic that you believe that people not under the employ of the US government are entitled to benefits (such as healthcare) by that federal government.... and that is where you are wrong





> I'm sorry...I don't have an ilk, socialist or otherwise. My team is merely the team seeking to find truth in a world of lies.


If you promote socialism or socialist ideals, then yes I would say you have an ilk.... you hardly seem interested in the truth.... mainly because you have ignored it






> Run on sentences indicate run on thoughts, chum.


Idiotic statement indicate idiotic thoughts, chum








> bla bla bla bla blaaaather.
> 
> While I have no doubt you feel justified in moaning and bitching, the above doesn't in any way address my points.
> 
> ...



You made no correct points





> Presumptive puppy. Each military person faces risks depending on their billet and station. Are you truly so clueless about the real military?



I served... and you???





> Ah yes, the flag surrender of the idiots who imagine themselves to be conservatives and patriots
> 
> When lost, assume that the people whose thoughts are beyond your limited ability to understand must be leftists.
> 
> ...



[/QUOTE]

I don't have to imagine myself as anything... nor do I have to defend myself to the likes of you

When someone takes a stand and attempts to defend a stand predicated on marxist/socialist/liberal views and slogans... it is logical to then call that stand socialist, marxist, or liberal in nature....

I have read many books.... most well above your 'Cat in the Hat' level of comprehension


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> Why would you make that assumption? I do believe that *I'm* the one talking about how stupid it is that a country with our wealth has 50% of its bankruptcies because people can't pay for medical care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The difference in my mind is that in one case the citizen gets something in return for offering that benefit (non socialized) while in the other case (socialized)  the citizen gets nothing in return.

The cost of health care which you allude to above is another discussion all together. 

As for others having what I have, by all means, if they are willing to pay the price that I have paid (military service or otherwise) then they should have what I have! I am not specifically referring to military service here. Trying to make it appear as if I am selfish or mean is just a wee bit below what I expected from you (but not by much). I dont want any individual who is not WILLING TO WORK for that benefit to have what I have. Earning a health care benefit is one thing, expecting it as an entitlement is quite another.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I disagree. If taxpayers are paying for it, it is socialized medicine whether it is to fulfill a contractual agreement or not.



Well then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement in opinions. I will never agree that payment for service (regardless of source of funding) is equal to socialism.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> Well then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement in opinions. I will never agree that payment for service (regardless of source of funding) is equal to socialism.



Excellent! I won't try to tell you how to think, either.

btw, what does CSM stand for?


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Excellent! I won't try to tell you how to think, either.
> 
> btw, what does CSM stand for?



Command Sergeant Major. It is the rank I had achieved prior to retirement from the US Army....you know, one of those great big socialist organizations.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 1, 2008)

In my never-to-be-considered humble opinion, socialized anything assumes government control of the service provided and/or the means by which it is provided.  So if the government hands us a check as a result of a contractual agreement but we can choose where we will spend it, even if we are required to spend it on say healthcare, that is not socialized medicine.  If the government dictates where and how we can spend it, that is socialized medicine.

So in the case of VA, Medicare, Medicade we can have a mixed system in which the government exercises some control but allows considerable freedom to make private choices. So I believe our current government involved systems are both socialized and private.  The socialized part is bad enough, however, and I sure don't want to think how it would look if the whole system becomes socialized.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> Command Sergeant Major. It is the rank I had achieved prior to retirement from the US Army....you know, one of those great big socialist organizations.



I don't think the Army is a socialist organization. But paying for medical care for the retired vets is a social program.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't think the Army is a socialist organization. But paying for medical care for the retired vets is a social program.



I got the gist of your opinion earlier in this discussion. From my perspective, there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further. Having said that, I truly appreciate your civility throughout said discussion. Kudos to you!


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I got the gist of your opinion earlier in this discussion. From my perspective, there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further. Having said that, I truly appreciate your civility throughout said discussion. Kudos to you!



Ditto! 

I was trying to think of a nickname for you because CSM is so awkward...how about Commie (short for Command)?


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Ditto!
> 
> I was trying to think of a nickname for you because CSM is so awkward...how about Commie (short for Command)?



Stick to CSM (though I appreciate the humor)!


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't think the Army is a socialist organization. But paying for medical care for the retired vets is a social program.



I guess private employers providing retirement benefits is socialistic in nature. Even though it is driven by the free market. If a certain employer didn't provide medical, dental or retirement benefits then they would lose great employees to other competitors in the market place. 

The same would go for the military as well, if they didn't provide medical care for retired vets. Then enlistments would dramatically drop due to competition from the private sector. Besides very few military personel would accept such a paltry pay if they didn't see the benefits awaiting them when they retire.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I guess private employers providing retirement benefits is socialistic in nature.



Only if mandated by the government.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Only if mandated by the government.



So you agree that for the vast majority of employers providing medical, dental and retirement benefits is a free market principle? Then you would agree with the logical transition from that to retired vets medical care correct?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> So you agree that for the vast majority of employers providing medical, dental and retirement benefits is a free market principle? Then would agree with the logical transition from that to retired vets medical care correct?


In the case of the employers, it isn't coming out of my pocket.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> In the case of the employers, it isn't coming out of my pocket.



Fair enough, but you do understand that the military couldn't compete with the private sector if they eliminated retirement benefits for vets right?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Fair enough, but you do understand that the military couldn't compete with the private sector if they eliminated retirement benefits for vets right?



Can they anyway? Seems to me that more and more military jobs are being outsourced.

I have no problem with giving them retirement benefits, btw. But I still consider it a social program.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Can they anyway? Seems to me that more and more military jobs are being outsourced.
> 
> I have no problem with giving them retirement benefits, btw. But I still consider it a social program.



Yes they can, (hopefully no copyright infringement there to Obama), they have consistentially competed with the private sector. Sure the military would like to do better but they still have competed pretty agressively with the private sector. A huge part of the military appeal is due to their benefits which allows them to compete in a free market.


----------



## WhoisJohnGault (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Can they anyway? Seems to me that more and more military jobs are being outsourced.
> 
> I have no problem with giving them retirement benefits, btw. But I still consider it a social program.


So then you feel that the military does not earn their retirement benefits?  God knows their pay is not extravagant!!!


----------



## WhoisJohnGault (Jul 1, 2008)

As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, should the citizens of this country decide that military service is not valuable enough to have health care included as a benefit, then they should remove said benefit from the contract the offer to prospective government employees.

I heartily second that opinion.


----------



## WhoisJohnGault (Jul 1, 2008)

Ah yes, the flag surrender of the idiots who imagine themselves to be conservatives and patriots 

When lost, assume that the people whose thoughts are beyond your limited ability to understand must be leftists.

The anti- intellectual refuge of angry white male morons of our age.

Call anything you don't understand or like either liberalism or socialism.

Go read a book, dude.

You don't know appear to know anything, or if you do, you clearly don't know how to take your knowledge and covert it into words.

Clearly this poster is a liberal, a socialist far left lib.  His writings are almost verbatiim of every other lib I have seen on boards.  As you said there is a definitie difference between PROMOTING the general welfare and PROVIDING the general welfare.  I'm sick of libs who fail to see the truth or just do not want to see the truth.  You know, libs think that if they say something often enough it will be true; they actually begin to believe it.  

And who in heck thought that our Constitution allows for healthcare to be provided????


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 1, 2008)

Usual position of Ravi. Ignorant, uninformed and based on nothing but stupidity.

Using her logic , firefighters, Police and every other Government ( Federal or In her State) employee is sucking off the Government tit if they foolishly work to retirement. But magically if they do a similar job for a private employer and get retirement, that is DIFFERENT.

With Logic like that, who needs to live in the real world?


----------



## WhoisJohnGault (Jul 1, 2008)

I wonder how many of those who claim they cannot afford health insurance have car loans?  Numerous televisions, the latest of course, more than one car.......all the latest techy toys, new cell phone every year, computers, X-box, PS3, etc etc etc.  Even more ......I wonder how many smoke?  Not because of the health problems but the cost!!!!!!Fact is, a lot of those listed under having no insurance, a large part are rich who pay cash so they can get back some tax benefits for out of the pocket medical expenses.  Also are those young, the twentysomethings and some thirtysomethings who are healthy and do not wish to spend the money at this time.  There are also those who just want to use the money they would have to pay for insurance on "other" things.  Granted insurance is high, I know.....I know.....I know.........believe me I know.....but the actual percentage of those who absolutely cannot afford insurance is far lower than we are led to believe.  And in this country if you do not have insurance you are NOT turned away.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

WhoisJohnGault said:


> So then you feel that the military does not earn their retirement benefits?  God knows their pay is not extravagant!!!



Where did I say that?

Are you wingnuts really this stupid that you assume to know what everyone else thinks?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual position of Ravi. Ignorant, uninformed and based on nothing but stupidity.
> 
> Using her logic , firefighters, Police and every other Government ( Federal or In her State) employee is sucking off the Government tit if they foolishly work to retirement. But magically if they do a similar job for a private employer and get retirement, that is DIFFERENT.
> 
> With Logic like that, who needs to live in the real world?



Please be so kind as to show me where I stated any of that, retard.

This is really funny. You guys can't stand it that you are benefiting from a social program, can you.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Please be so kind as to show me where I stated any of that, retard.
> 
> This is really funny. You guys can't stand it that you are benefiting from a social program, can you.



I can't stand the fact that you choose to call an earned benefit a social program....but if that gives you some kind of satisfaction, so be it. 

As I said, I will never agree that your definition of a social program is the correct one.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Please be so kind as to show me where I stated any of that, retard.
> 
> This is really funny. You guys can't stand it that you are benefiting from a social program, can you.



You have stated that Military retirement is a social program and a hand out because the Government pays it, thus all of the listed functions are the same, Police, Firefighters etc are all Government employees that receive retirement FROM the Government.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I can't stand the fact that you choose to call an earned benefit a social program....but if that gives you some kind of satisfaction, so be it.
> 
> As I said, I will never agree that your definition of a social program is the correct one.



And you would be correct that this person's definition of a social program is incorrect and based on a political stance to make an inane point

A social program would be by definition an entitlement that can be taken advantage of by a person who is not deriving that benefit from performing a service (or in other words earning it)...

The benefits earned by soldiers for their employment/service is no more of a social program than the benefits earned by a retired worker from a steel plant... the federal government is the employer of the soldiers... those receiving handouts from social programs are not the employees of the social program

though I would LOVE to see those receiving governmental "handouts" be required to actually work for them


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And you would be correct that this person's definition of a social program is incorrect and based on a political stance to make an inane point
> 
> A social program would be by definition an entitlement that can be taken advantage of by a person who is not deriving that benefit from performing a service (or in other words earning it)...
> 
> ...



I suspect Ravi is deriving some twisted pleasure out of using her stance to needle vets more than she really thinks retirement benefits are truly a social program.


----------



## jillian (Jul 1, 2008)

WhoisJohnGault said:


> I wonder how many of those who claim they cannot afford health insurance have car loans?  Numerous televisions, the latest of course, more than one car.......all the latest techy toys, new cell phone every year, computers, X-box, PS3, etc etc etc.  Even more ......I wonder how many smoke?  Not because of the health problems but the cost!!!!!!Fact is, a lot of those listed under having no insurance, a large part are rich who pay cash so they can get back some tax benefits for out of the pocket medical expenses.  Also are those young, the twentysomethings and some thirtysomethings who are healthy and do not wish to spend the money at this time.  There are also those who just want to use the money they would have to pay for insurance on "other" things.  Granted insurance is high, I know.....I know.....I know.........believe me I know.....but the actual percentage of those who absolutely cannot afford insurance is far lower than we are led to believe.  And in this country if you do not have insurance you are NOT turned away.



And if they need their cars to go to work? Computers for their children's homework?

It's your business if people smoke? Interesting. But I'm sure you're a real libertarian, eh?

I'm afraid your observations sound all nicey nice since they're typical right wing whinging, but before you get to engage in stereotypes, I'd suggest that you actually provide some evidence to substantiate your comments.

Again, 50% of bankruptcs declare bankruptcy because they can't afford medical treatment.

Are there abuses of the system? Probably some, but it sure doesn't justify your comments.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And you would be correct that this person's definition of a social program is incorrect and based on a political stance to make an inane point
> 
> A social program would be by definition an entitlement that can be taken advantage of by a person who is not deriving that benefit from performing a service (or in other words earning it)...
> 
> ...



Exactly my point....


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I suspect Ravi is deriving some twisted pleasure out of using her stance to needle vets more than she really thinks retirement benefits are truly a social program.



No, I really do believe it. You're taking my money to give a benefit to someone else. It's actually more of a social program than social security is, IMO. At least there I have a snowball's chance of getting some of my own money back.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> No, I really do believe it. You're taking my money to give a benefit to someone else. It's actually more of a social program than social security is, IMO. At least there I have a snowball's chance of getting some of my own money back.



No your paying for a service, for the military to protect you.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No your paying for a service, for the military to protect you.


Which they get a salary for as well. I understand that it's part of the benefit package but it's still my money being taken away from me and used in a manner I might not wish it to be used. Now if they were drafted, I'd be more apt to agree with you.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Which they get a salary for as well. I understand that it's part of the benefit package but it's still my money being taken away from me and used in a manner I might not wish it to be used. Now if they were drafted, I'd be more apt to agree with you.



Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. The military provides a service to you as a taxpayer. They protect your freedoms, this comes with a price. The price is a meager pay and good benefits.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. The military provides a service to you as a taxpayer. They protect your freedoms, this comes with a price. The price is a meager pay and good benefits.


That doesn't mean it isn't a social benefit to those that receive it. The government also protects the economy by providing welfare so people aren't dying on the streets. Another social program.

Being American comes with a price. At least we seem to agree on that.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> That doesn't mean it isn't a social benefit to those that receive it. The government also protects the economy by providing welfare so people aren't dying on the streets. Another social program.
> 
> Being American comes with a price. At least we seem to agree on that.



But troops provide a service protecting our country, what service do welfare participants provide?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> But troops provide a service protecting our country, what service do welfare participants provide?



They stimulate the economy.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> They stimulate the economy.



Lmao....

So thats what welfare was intended to do, stimulate the economy? What by spending money the government has to borrow from China among others?


----------



## jillian (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> They stimulate the economy.



See, they're trying to reframe the debate. We AREN'T TALKING ABOUT WELFARE. We're talking about an industrialized nation having people go bankrupt because they have no health insurance.

This isn't about welfare. And with more and more businesses being unwilling to give health coverage, this is going to become an even bigger issue.

Just remember, these are the same people who think Social Security is welfare and think it shouldn't exist.


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> See, they're trying to reframe the debate. We AREN'T TALKING ABOUT WELFARE. We're talking about an industrialized nation having people go bankrupt because they have no health insurance.
> 
> This isn't about welfare. And with more and more businesses being unwilling to give health coverage, this is going to become an even bigger issue.
> 
> Just remember, these are the same people who think Social Security is welfare and think it shouldn't exist.



I am one of the ones who think social security should not exist. Does that make me an evil person?

Regulation of the cost of health insurance is an entirely different subject (for me anyway) than the issue of providing free health care for all.


----------



## jillian (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I am one of the ones who think social security should not exist. Does that make me an evil person?
> 
> Regulation of the cost of health insurance is an entirely different subject (for me anyway) than the issue of providing free health care for all.



I don't think anyone's talking about government doctors meeting people's health care needs.

My understanding is we're talking about COVERAGE.

And no, it doesn't make you evil.... it just makes you wrong, to my mind, anyway.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I am one of the ones who think social security should not exist. Does that make me an evil person?
> 
> Regulation of the cost of health insurance is an entirely different subject (for me anyway) than the issue of providing free health care for all.



Exactly... regulation is one thing.... providing healthcare is something completely different and something the government was never intended to do


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> No, I really do believe it. You're taking my money to give a benefit to someone else. It's actually more of a social program than social security is, IMO. At least there I have a snowball's chance of getting some of my own money back.



I find it interesting that you do not perceive pay and benefits for military personnel as a good return on investment.

Also, you want to take MY money and give a benefit to someone else (in this case, health care) who has done absolutely NOTHING to earn it! Does that not seem somewhat hypocritical?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> See, they're trying to reframe the debate. We AREN'T TALKING ABOUT WELFARE. We're talking about an industrialized nation having people go bankrupt because they have no health insurance.
> 
> This isn't about welfare. And with more and more businesses being unwilling to give health coverage, this is going to become an even bigger issue.
> 
> Just remember, these are the same people who think Social Security is welfare and think it shouldn't exist.



And the beauty of a free society is that if you want healthcare provided by an employer, and they don't provide it where you are currently working... you have the choice to leave and work for a place that does compensate as you want to be compensated... you just better be prepared to do for yourself what it takes to demand that benefit.... it is your responsibility to gain the ability to provide the service that demands the compensation... big business is willing to pay what it takes to gain the resources they need to compete and succeed while making a profit... you make yourself a wanted commodity rather than a burger flipper, and you generally do just fine

your personal responsibility to take care of yourself and your family is not on my shoulders, nor on the shoulders of others in this nation.... hence why it is a personal responsibility... you are the only one responsible for you


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> See, they're trying to reframe the debate. We AREN'T TALKING ABOUT WELFARE. We're talking about an industrialized nation having people go bankrupt because they have no health insurance.
> 
> This isn't about welfare. And with more and more businesses being unwilling to give health coverage, this is going to become an even bigger issue.
> 
> Just remember, these are the same people who think Social Security is welfare and think it shouldn't exist.



I'm trying to reframe the debate? I guess that Ravi believes Social Security is welfare, since Ravi brought up welfare huh?


----------



## CSM (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> I don't think anyone's talking about government doctors meeting people's health care needs.
> 
> My understanding is we're talking about COVERAGE.
> 
> And no, it doesn't make you evil.... it just makes you wrong, to my mind, anyway.



Well gee wiz, I thought we were talking about the government paying for individual health care (provided by a government doctor or otherwise).

just os ya know, I would rather be wrong than broke. Broke is what I will be if idealists insist on taking my money to pay for benefits for others who contribute nothing to society in return (welfare recipients come to mind, especially those who choose to make it a career.)


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I'm trying to reframe the debate? I guess that Ravi believes Social Security is welfare, since Ravi brought up welfare huh?



Social Security is indeed welfare when  a person has not paid into the system what is being paid out to him.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Lmao....
> 
> So thats what welfare was intended to do, stimulate the economy?


 Pretty much.



> What by spending money the government has to borrow from China among others?


No, that would be pay for the idiocy of invading Iraq.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> I find it interesting that you do not perceive pay and benefits for military personnel as a good return on investment.
> 
> Also, you want to take MY money and give a benefit to someone else (in this case, health care) who has done absolutely NOTHING to earn it! Does that not seem somewhat hypocritical?



I do think it's a good thing to pay for benefits for the military. I thought I'd stated that a few times up the thread.

I also stated that I haven't decided on health care. 

Social programs aren't evil.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

> Social programs aren't evil.



Nor are they something that the government was ever supposed to be responsible for....

Voluntary social programs run by charities and given freely to by those who WISH to donate.... that is all well and good.... I support many charities that way.... but your personal responsibilities for taking care of yourself, providing for yourself, etc is not on my shoulders or the shoulders of other individuals in this country (or the responsibility of the government)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> I don't think anyone's talking about government doctors meeting people's health care needs.
> 
> My understanding is we're talking about COVERAGE.
> 
> And no, it doesn't make you evil.... it just makes you wrong, to my mind, anyway.



And yet the Democrats are trying to force all Medicare patients to ONLY use Doctors the Government selects. Please do us all a favor and actually read shit before you spew out uninformed opinion.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Nor are they something that the government was ever supposed to be responsible for....



Sure? Under the general welfare clause it is covered. There's nothing in the constitution about health care for military retirees either.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Sure? Under the general welfare clause it is covered. There's nothing in the constitution about health care for military retirees either.



Uhhh... maybe you should actually understand that promoting GENERAL WELFARE is not providing PERSONAL WELFARE.... I would suggest a little understanding of what was meant

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Uhhh... maybe you should actually understand that promoting GENERAL WELFARE is not providing PERSONAL WELFARE.... I would suggest a little understanding of what was meant
> 
> The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



It means basically the the government can enact laws that provide for the general welfare of the populace.

I suggest you do a little reading.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 1, 2008)

And general welfare (such as national defense... enforcing and creating of laws... funding the government to run....  etc).... is not taking over the personal responsibilities of individuals in their own lives

absolutely un-freaking-believable


Amazing how libs have no want for or comprehension of the difference between general welfare and personal responsibility


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And general welfare (such as national defense... enforcing and creating of laws... funding the government to run....  etc).... is not taking over the personal responsibilities of individuals in their own lives
> 
> absolutely un-freaking-believable
> 
> ...



Tell you what. Prove to me that taxing people is illegal and we'll continue the discussion.

Keep in mind that the economy of the country is just as vital to its thriving as national defense is.


----------



## editec (Jul 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> See, they're trying to reframe the debate. We AREN'T TALKING ABOUT WELFARE. We're talking about an industrialized nation having people go bankrupt because they have no health insurance.
> .


 
That's cause they got no game and they know it.

What I'm finding amusing is watching libertarians trying to differentitate military medince from socialized medicine, or for that matter, trying to explain why the military isn't a form of socialism.


A government TAKES TAXES from people. Uses those taxes for the military and that's not another example of socialism how, exactly?

No wonder they want to change the subject.

They want the socialism they want, and that they call okay.

The socialism they don't like they damn.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 1, 2008)

editec said:


> That's cause they got no game and they know it.
> 
> What I'm finding amusing is watching libertarians trying to differentitate military medince from socialized medicine, or for that matter, trying to explain why the military isn't a form of socialism.
> 
> ...



Look Ma, another fucking Moron. The Government HIRES people and makes Contracts with them you stupid shit. Military retirees EARNED the retirement by preforming a job as set forth in a Contract that once fulfilled allows them retirement. Using your logic cops, fireman, Park Rangers, everyone employed by the Government should never get a package that allows for retirement, HELL it is socialism just to pay them for working for the Government using your ignorant opinion.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 1, 2008)

editec said:


> That's cause they got no game and they know it.
> 
> What I'm finding amusing is watching libertarians trying to differentitate military medince from socialized medicine, or for that matter, trying to explain why the military isn't a form of socialism.
> 
> ...



Did you read the rest of the thread or are you just responding to Jillian completely clueless as to what was said earlier? The military provides a service to taxpayers, part of the compensation for services rendered is a retirement package.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 2, 2008)

Main Entry:
    so·cial·ism Listen to the pronunciation of socialism
Pronunciation:
    \&#712;s&#333;-sh&#601;-&#716;li-z&#601;m\ 
Function:
    noun 
Date:
    1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

*Social program -* a detailed outline of state activity which follows and implements a specific social welfare policy. A social program outlines the funds to be spent and the purposes for which they will be spent.

Just like a lot of those New Deal programs FDR implemented.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> *Social program -* a detailed outline of state activity which follows and implements a specific social welfare policy. A social program outlines the funds to be spent and the purposes for which they will be spent.
> 
> Just like a lot of those New Deal programs FDR implemented.




Yet a welfare policy is not an employment policy... soldiers are employees... not social program recipients... your lazy bum welfare junkies are the social program recipients


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yet a welfare policy is not an employment policy... soldiers are employees... not social program recipients... your lazy bum welfare junkies are the social program recipients



Sorry, you are incorrect. Bennies to the retired military is a social program. Choke on it.


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

ravi said:


> sorry, You Are Incorrect. Bennies To The Retired Military Is A Social Program. Choke On It.



No, They Are Not....choke On That!


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

CSM said:


> No, They Are Not....choke On That!



Wow, you lower-cased my name.

I'm sobbing now.


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Wow, you lower-cased my name.
> 
> I'm sobbing now.



Not me...I merely hit the quote button. I have no idea why it came out lower case.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Sorry, you are incorrect. Bennies to the retired military is a social program. Choke on it.



stubborn little lib....

comprehension must be so hard for you

just like in the private sector... you obtain benefits from employment... many benefits come from prolonged employment for a company/employer... those many times include retirement bennies such as healthcare, pension, etc...

they are not receiving something for nothing... they are receiving compensation for providing a service as an employee...

with a social program, employment and/or service is not a requirement


----------



## jillian (Jul 2, 2008)

editec said:


> That's cause they got no game and they know it.
> 
> What I'm finding amusing is watching libertarians trying to differentitate military medince from socialized medicine, or for that matter, trying to explain why the military isn't a form of socialism.
> 
> ...




I think it goes deeper than that. The right sees national defense as the one legitimate duty of government. They don't care if it bankrupts us. They don't care whether soldiers are cared for when they come back since they're supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in a John Wayne kind of way.  But they don't see it in the same light as other government provided services.

So I think it's a bit more than wanting the type of socialism they want.

However, they AREN'T looking at the issue rationally in terms of the long term survival of our society and the dangers of the huge and growing disparity between the haves and have nots.


----------



## jillian (Jul 2, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> stubborn little lib....
> 
> comprehension must be so hard for you
> 
> ...



All social programs, stubborn little rightie?


----------



## editec (Jul 2, 2008)

Dance libertopians dance!

Either socialism is a specific thing with a clearly understood definition, or it's not.

Since we have whining crybabies complaining about social security, and calling that welfare, I have no problem pointing out that the military is (according to their twisted definition of things, at least ) also funded though their definition of socialism.

It appears we have a number of people whose whole careers were serving the socialist machine, and who are now on socialist military retired welfare complianing that somebody else (doesn't matter who, really, these people's anger is nondifferentiated) is ALSO getting a check from the government.

_Oh boo-hoo-hoo_ cry me an Ayn Rand river

People on Social securuity paid into the system AND paid your socialist military salaries while they were doing it, you big fat whining objectivist babies.

Get over it.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> All social programs, stubborn little rightie?



Again... employment is not a social program... it is payment for services rendered... social programs of no employment requirement for receipt of the benefit... I.E. not earned

big difference


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

The CCC was a social program, too.


----------



## jillian (Jul 2, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Again... employment is not a social program... it is payment for services rendered... social programs of no employment requirement for receipt of the benefit... I.E. not earned
> 
> big difference



You mean like the WPA? Or welfare to work? 

Stubborn little rightie...


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Dance libertopians dance!
> 
> Either socialism is a specific thing with a clearly understood definition, or it's not.
> 
> ...




Well alrighty then...if I send you my address will you send me your income?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> You mean like the WPA? Or welfare to work?
> 
> Stubborn little rightie...



TRY THE TERM EMPLOYEE... it may start to give you a clue

As stated before.. I have no problems with social programs sponsored by charities and private organizations.... but it is not the job of government...

I feel good about VOLUNTARILY supporting different programs... not being forced to in an involuntary, Robin Hood-like,  socialist control system


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> I think it goes deeper than that. The right sees national defense as the one legitimate duty of government. They don't care if it bankrupts us. They don't care whether soldiers are cared for when they come back since they're supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in a John Wayne kind of way.  But they don't see it in the same light as other government provided services.
> 
> ...



You got it!  those "other government provided services" are simply not a legitimate duty of government in my book. 

All that aside, if taking my military retirement benefits which I have earned makes me socialist, then so be it. That just means you and the bleeding heart idealists are something else (how does blood sucking tyrants operating under the guise of democracy sound?) .... and those who take what you call welfare are something even worse (pond scum comes to mind).


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

Soldiers are employees? I didn't realize that. Doesn't change the premise that their bennies are a social program.


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Soldiers are employees? I didn't realize that. Doesn't change the premise that their bennies are a social program.



What the heck do you think soldiers are?

It may not change YOUR premise that their bennies are a social program but is sure shoots a great big gaping hole in that premise as far as I'm concerned. But then we have had this discussion already, haven't we!


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

CSM said:


> What the heck do you think soldiers are?
> 
> It may not change YOUR premise that their bennies are a social program but is sure shoots a great big gaping hole in that premise as far as I'm concerned. But then we have had this discussion already, haven't we!



Not sure, but most employees don't have to swear to uphold the constitution.

I've no idea why DD is beating this subject to death.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

it's pretty laughable to call military bennys a social program.  Soldiers WORK for their bennys in a high risk environment.  What the hell is the equivalent in any single social program?


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Not sure, but most employees don't have to swear to uphold the constitution.
> 
> I've no idea why DD is beating this subject to death.



uh, so does every politician assuming a role in government.  Are they not STILL federal employees?  Are THEIR bennys nothing more than a social program too?


WOW.


just.  WOW.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

Shogun said:


> it's pretty laughable to call military bennys a social program.  Soldiers WORK for their bennys in a high risk environment.  What the hell is the equivalent in any single social program?



CCC. WPA. Stuff like that.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

HA!


it's mind boggling that you have had any experience whatsoever in employment, Ravi.



WOW.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

Shogun said:


> HA!
> 
> 
> it's mind boggling that you have had any experience whatsoever in employment, Ravi.
> ...



I agree. Less than you and yet I know vastly more than you. And you even probably got your degree in some lame-o HR course.


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Not sure, but most employees don't have to swear to uphold the constitution.
> 
> I've no idea why DD is beating this subject to death.



Most employees do have some kind of employment contract. It may be verbal but it is there. 

The oath just happens to be one of those extras the American people get because it's part of the package.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Soldiers are employees? I didn't realize that. Doesn't change the premise that their bennies are a social program.



Good grief, Ravi. Of course they're employees. They work for a wage. Think about it.


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I agree. Less than you and yet I know vastly more than you. And you even probably got your degree in some lame-o HR course.



heh...love the arrogance. 

"I'm right, your wrong and since you dont agree you must be dumber than a rock".


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

CSM said:


> Most employees do have some kind of employment contract. It may be verbal but it is there.
> 
> The oath just happens to be one of those extras the American people get because it's part of the package.



The social benefits package?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

CSM said:


> heh...love the arrogance.
> 
> "I'm right, your wrong and since you dont agree you must be dumber than a rock".



Well, that was _Shog_ I was talking to.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I agree. Less than you and yet I know vastly more than you. And you even probably got your degree in some lame-o HR course.



puh-lease.  YOU are the person who things that hiring a wandering truck full of illegal mexicans would not require you to prove their legal work status.  Criticism from you regarding HR is a real knee-slapper.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Well, that was _Shog_ I was talking to.



yea.. the guy who trounces you in every thread you bring your bag of stupidity to.


----------



## CSM (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> The social benefits package?



Only in your fantasy.... for normal people its an employment package.


Don't tell me you don't enjoy poking sticks at folks!


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

CSM said:


> Only in your fantasy.... for normal people its an employment package.
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you don't enjoy poking sticks at folks!



LOL! I was thinking, the military is pretty much a social benefit to me, wouldn't you say? That pretty much makes it a social program.

I still think your bennies are as well, but I'm not about to hold it against you.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> LOL! I was thinking, the military is pretty much a social benefit to me, wouldn't you say? That pretty much makes it a social program.
> 
> I still think your bennies are as well, but I'm not about to hold it against you.



AND, it's this kind of goofy shit that makes your "expertise" in HR so funny.


Enjoy!  I sure am!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 2, 2008)

CSM said:


> Only in your fantasy.... for normal people its an employment package.
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you don't enjoy poking sticks at folks!



Maybe there is a 'Bare Bones Basics Economics for Dummies' someplace?  The chapter on income would almost certainly include:

*Employment contract: *  A formal agreement between an employer and employee specifying what work/services will be provided and what the compensation will be for such work/services.  Such package can include one or all of the following:

1.  Hourly wage or salary.  (Those who agree to #1 alone are expected to pay for all the rest out of pocket.  The employer will withhold required taxes from the wages but otherwise this is not much different than a contract with an independent contractor or service person who agrees to perform a certain amount of work in return for an agreed upon fee.)

2.  Health/Life/Disability insurance.

3.  Retirement plan - the employer may agree to contribute all monies to such funds or provide matching funds or simply administrate a wholly employee contribution plan.

4.  Normal job expenses (mileage/vehicle, per diem, supplies, tools, uniforms, safety equipment, etc.)

5.  Housing, food, transportation, other living expenses.

6.  Moving/relocation expenses.

7.  Education, child care, self-improvement, certification requirments, licenses, professional insurance.

8.  Stock options.

The contract will spell out what, if any, compensation will continue after the job ends.

The military pays considerably less in wages than can be obtained for comparable work in the private sector, but does offer some attractive benefits in addition to wages; otherwise it would be difficult or impossible to persuade good people to volunteer for the service.  Such benefits are NOT socialism in any form but are rather part of the compensation package included in the employment agreement.


----------



## WhoisJohnGault (Jul 2, 2008)

Shogun said:


> uh, so does every politician assuming a role in government.  Are they not STILL federal employees?  Are THEIR bennys nothing more than a social program too?
> 
> 
> WOW.
> ...


Oh I think politicians all are on welfare, doesn't everyone?  They all live off the dole.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

Shogun said:


> AND, it's this kind of goofy shit that makes your "expertise" in HR so funny.
> 
> 
> Enjoy!  I sure am!



Shog, you are the one that pretends an expertise in HR. I'm just pointing out you know less than I, and I've no training in it at all.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 2, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Shog, you are the one that pretends an expertise in HR. I'm just pointing out you know less than I, and I've no training in it at all.



It was obvious that you had no training during the I-9 escapade.  I do this shit every day, Ravi.  Talk all the shit you need to but we both know whose footprint stopms the mudhole in your ass when it comes to employment topics.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2008)

Shogun said:


> It was obvious that you had no training during the I-9 escapade.  I do this shit every day, Ravi.  Talk all the shit you need to but we both know whose footprint stopms the mudhole in your ass when it comes to employment topics.


Sadly for your promotion prospects, not yours.


----------

