# Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?



## Pedro de San Patricio (Sep 13, 2015)

Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


----------



## Obiwan (Sep 13, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


Go to the ER... They can't legally turn you down.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 13, 2015)

There are laws against refusing treatment for those in need. Fail thread


----------



## Tank (Sep 13, 2015)

You're thinking of Mexico


----------



## Hossfly (Sep 13, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


 





​


----------



## Freewill (Sep 13, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



Why would anyone be morally obligated?  Not saying that people are not morally obligated but think about this.  You say the person has no money to pay.  Too bad for the bloated healthcare insitution.  What you are really saying is, why does someone have a problem taking the healthcare institutions off the hook for what they should do and write off?

To answer you OP question, I don't have a huge problem helping people out, but I see how some have worked and I know how I busted my ass and it makes me a little jealous that they can help themselves to my money.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 19, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



No, I'm not.  If they're not family or friends of mine, why would I?

More to the point, whatever moral obligations I do or do not have to total strangers are a private matter between me and my conscience.  They are not for YOU to dictate and force through tax policy according to what YOU think is moral.


----------



## Rshermr (Sep 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



Maybe rational thought would be helpful. Like, facts are:
1. There are 35 nations considered advanced in ODEC.
2. All but two have socialized medicine used by the vast majority of their citizens. (The two are the US and the SWISS, the two with the most expensive healthcare)
3. All socialized medicine is financed via taxes.
4. All cost their citizens MUCH less than the old private hc system of the US. On average close to half as much.
5. All ODEC nations except the us cover ALL citizens. The us, under private insurance, left a large percentage uncovered.
6. The US, despite what we pay, has just AVERAGE healthcare.

So, Obamacare may be the platform that gets you to where the rest of the advanced nations have been for years.

Only those who listen to the healthcare industry company, and their political paid tools, believe private insurance is a good plan.


----------



## HenryBHough (Sep 23, 2015)

Aw shit, do I have to do that _again_ this week?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2015)

Rshermr said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



Ahh, the "peer pressure" school of domestic policy.  "Everyone else is doing it, so that means we should!"

Maybe this is an example of why none of those other countries are the leaders of the free world, and THEY should start emulating US more.  Ever consider that?

Regardless, I don't much care about how other countries do things.  I don't live there, and if I wanted things done that way, I would move.  I'm an American, with a uniquely American attitude and outlook on life, and I want a healthcare solution that is tailored for who we are, not for who leftists think we should be.

If you like those systems so much, why can't you just go join them, instead of eliminating the possibility of those of us who DON'T like those systems having an alternative?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 5, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Aw shit, do I have to do that _again_ this week?



Every week, because these dimwits aren't going to stop shouting their big lie.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



And then their costs are passed on to gullible people like you who'd rather pay higher hospital and clinic costs than accept the fact that the PPACA isn't going away, no matter how much you cry.


----------



## Obiwan (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...


So it seems we have to support the lazy, no-account Liberals regardless, right???

I'm looking forward to the Democrats being thrown out on their collective worthless asses next year... Maybe they can manage to steal a job from one of Obozo's pet illegals.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> So it seems we have to support the lazy, no-account Liberals regardless, right???



It seems you've posted this in the wrong thread.  Would you like to go back to discussing people needing medical care?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



Rather pay for the guy's healthcare so he can keep working filling in potholes than not, and have him out sick instead of doing that job.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...


If he's filling potholes, he's probably employed by the local municipality and has access to affordable health insurance.

These days, the people with the mindset "If I get sick I'll go to the ER" and who then try to kite on the bill are the assholes who refuse to get insurance, like our boy "Obiwan."


----------



## Obiwan (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > So it seems we have to support the lazy, no-account Liberals regardless, right???
> ...


Sure...

A lot of the people paying for their insurance (and insurance for the deadbeats) can't get healthcare because of the high deductables...

That's means they're paying for something TWICE, and then doing without so that a worthless Lib can have it for free...
How Can Insured Americans Lack Medical Care?
Nineteen percent of privately insured adults don’t go to the doctor when they're sick, and higher cost-sharing responsibilities are largely to blame.


----------



## Obiwan (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...


 I have insurance...

I'm just tired of skyrocketing premiums and high deductables where lazy fucks can get free shit (that I have to pay for)...


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



And scamming the medical industry when they charge $750/pill for a drug that used to be $17 is immoral because...?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> I have insurance...
> 
> I'm just tired of skyrocketing premiums and high deductables...


Then you need to change insurers.



Obiwan said:


> where lazy fucks can get free shit (that I have to pay for)...



Can you be more specific or do you always post generalities?



Obiwan said:


> A lot of the people paying for their insurance (and insurance for the deadbeats) can't get healthcare because of the high deductables...



Because they've opted for a bronze plan when a silver plan might be preferable.

BTW, high deductibles are not a recent phenomenon.  That some of you have only recently discovered their existence suggests you never had to trouble your pretty little heads about these things when Mom&Dad or Daddy Corporation helped you out.



Obiwan said:


> That's means they're paying for something TWICE...



No, it really doesn't.

And chanting the "free stuff" meme won't make it so.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> And scamming the medical industry when they charge $750/pill for a drug that used to be $17 is immoral because...?



It absolutely is, and you'll notice the little scumbag rolled it back.  IMO it was just a publicity stunt.  He got his 15 minutes of fame and it'll open doors for him.  That doesn't make it right, just typically 1%er.


----------



## Obiwan (Oct 5, 2015)

So if the people that are paying for their insurance aren't covering somebody else too, where's the money coming from???

Does Obozo have an Orchard of those special trees you can pick money off of hid somewhere????


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> So if the people that are paying for their insurance aren't covering somebody else too, where's the money coming from???



Someone needs a tutorial in Insurance 101.

Do you know what "spreading the risk" means?

Are you familiar with the term "Pareto principle"?


----------



## Greeneyedlady (Oct 5, 2015)

yes the insurance companies are spreading their risk. It's in obamacare that they are guaranteed payment.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Greeneyedlady said:


> yes the insurance companies are spreading their risk. It's in obamacare that they are guaranteed payment.



They're also required to spend no less than 80% of your premiums on healthcare services instead of siphoning as much as possible off to their stockholders.  Blue Shield, for one, just got smacked for failing to do so and its clients were sent refunds for the difference.

That would not have been possible prior to the PPACA.

However, spreading the risk is how all insurance works - life, home, auto, liability, and health insurance - based on the Pareto principle.

Anyone dim enough to start babbling about "money trees" probably doesn't have the Google skills to look up "Pareto principle."

And they certainly wouldn't comprehend the fact that, by its very nature, insurance involves "paying for other people."


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. *That care will only be provided for payment.* That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


that's a lie.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. *That care will only be provided for payment.* That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



It's a hypothetical.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...


It's a lie.


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



If the state pays, how much actually money do you think one individual has contributed to this case?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



So you can read minds, Miss Cleo?  How wonderful for you.  

All I can predict is that you're going to post "It's a lie" for the third time.  And...go...


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

Freewill said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



No individual can truly say they paid, If the state pays...

people are stupid


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


he never said it was hypothetical
you did
so you assumed

but lets pretend it's not a lie, the other choice is that he's an idiot.

so you and the op are liars or idiots

take your pick and own it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



It's self-evident.  You obviously believe someone would take the time to post here if someone they knew was having a medical crisis.  

Your literal-mindedness is your problem, no one else's.  Own it, or just keep repeating yourself.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



No.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



So you're not really in medicine.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


yes, you and the op are liars, that's self evident.

and you're an idiot for making up such a lame excuse.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> yes, you and the op are liars, that's self evident.



To someone who's not very smart.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



You have no clue what you are talking about do you? The fact that I am in medicine has nothing to do with me having to pay for someone else's care. I have no obligation to do so.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> The fact that I am in medicine has nothing to do with me having to pay for someone else's care. I have no obligation to do so.



But you'd refuse care to someone who couldn't pay.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that I am in medicine has nothing to do with me having to pay for someone else's care. I have no obligation to do so.
> ...



No dumbass, that only exists in your malfunctioning brain.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



Should I be forced to sell my car or live in a smaller house or work 3 extra hours a week in order to pay for the med care of someone I don't even know?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Understandably, because it might cost you your job.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



Hey, Two Thumbs, would you consider this a hypothetical or a lie?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> > yes the insurance companies are spreading their risk. It's in obamacare that they are guaranteed payment.
> ...


What's wrong with not wanting to pay for some deadbeat's Free Shit? I worked for my money for my benefit, not freeloaders.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> No individual can truly say they paid, If the state pays... people are stupid



Yeah ... 'cause everyone knows state revenues grow on trees.
You truly are stupid.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Should I be forced to sell my car or live in a smaller house or work an extra 3 hours a week in order to pay for the med care of someone I don't even know?
> ...



You conveniently forgot to respond to the question.


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > No individual can truly say they paid, If the state pays... people are stupid
> ...



Idiot. How much do you think you personally contribute to a 10 million dollar program? Would your contribution of pulled even be noticed?

The social compact needs to deal with people like you and the children you spawn


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > No individual can truly say they paid, If the state pays... people are stupid
> ...


These Freebiejeebies are determined to force everyone to be Socialist or Communist or Freeloading Liberal Progressive Pukes. Fukum all.


----------



## Slyhunter (Oct 5, 2015)

Should someone who is on welfare be able to get a multi-thousand heart transplant paid for at tax payers expense?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You piece of shit, you edited what I said. I said" No dumbass that only exists in your malfunctioning brain. Working in healthcare does no obligate me to pay for someone else's healthcare."


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


The social compact could stand a good ass kicking.


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Like paying for parasitic military veterans who got paid while they served?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



He also alters responses he doesn't like.


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



The nation will be better served as your kind die off


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> You conveniently forgot to respond to the question.



I didn't forget.  I'd have thought the tenor of my posts to date would give you a clue to my belief that healthcare is a subset of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Not to mention that the PPACA has had a salubrious effect on the overall economy as well as individual Americans' ability to take care of their health.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

[QUOTE="Hossfly]
What's wrong with not wanting to pay for some deadbeat's Free Shit? I worked for my money for my benefit, not freeloaders.[/QUOTE]

Is that your one-size-fits-all response to everything?  Because it's not a good fit for this topic.  Try again.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 5, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


Not if they don't belong in this country......and not if we're talking 30 million of them.....as the Democrats plan on bringing here.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

PredFan said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



In the case of your posts, I'm just weed-whacking the bullshit to get to the relevant part.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



Did you wander into the wrong forum?  Immigration is thataway ---->


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You conveniently forgot to respond to the question.
> ...



Ah ... the high road. How noble of you.
So which must I sacrifice for those I don't even know? Sell my car? Move to a smaller house? Work a few extra hours a week? All three? Anything else?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Just pay your insurance premiums.  Or are you another one who doesn't understand how insurance works?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


As I served I paid Federal and State taxes. I had a contract and it guaranteed a pension. I was permanently disabled. And I'm supposed to fork over money to deadbeats and scam artists. Fukum all.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Spoken like a dedicated Socialist Progressive Liberal Puke.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Really?  Why?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


So they'll die off quicker.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.



Dante said:


> Like paying for parasitic military veterans who got paid while they served?



Yeah ... you love for those who sacrifice to preserve your freedom is once again noted, !!!



Dante said:


> The nation will be better served as your kind die off



WOW ... just WOW.
You are world class slime Dante, and I mean that with all due respect.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Because you "fork over money"?  That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Whew, that's a relief. I thought my insurance premiums covered those of us insured by CIGNA.

I was worried you wanted to tax me to cover the med care costs of those who aren't responsible enough to carry their own health insurance.

You know ... those who have no money or insurance and for whom the OP suggests I am somehow financially responsible.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Subversive parasites aren't capable of understanding Capitalism and Democracy.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Then it's puzzling you'd want to talk to them instead of to another responsible adult.

In any event, thank you for your service.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Oh, my bad.  I thought you were an American.


----------



## Obiwan (Oct 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...


So the state picked the money off that magic money tree???

Believe me, we're paying for your "free shit" that way, too...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Whew, that's a relief. I thought my insurance premiums covered those of us insured by CIGNA.



Yes, including the 20% of CIGNA clients who will require 80% of the healthcare spend for things like cancer and chronic degenerative conditions that, in the past, companies like CIGNA would either cap or outright refuse to cover.

They're not allowed to do that under the PPACA.  The OP may not be aware of that.  The scenario he describes is something that happened all-too-frequently in the past.  It may be hard to believe that it's no longer SOP.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> So the state picked the money off that magic money tree???
> 
> Believe me, we're paying for your "free shit" that way, too...



See, I thought Dante was being harsh in saying people were stupid, but then I read ^this post...


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > So the state picked the money off that magic money tree??? Believe me, we're paying for your "free shit" that way, too...
> ...



Yeah, 'cause depending on Dante's judgment will get you far.   



Dante said:


> Like paying for parasitic military veterans who got paid while they served?





Dante said:


> The nation will be better served as your kind die off


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Obiwan said:
> ...


this coming from an imbecile who signed up with a doofus screen name


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Yeah, 'cause depending on Dante's judgment will get you far.


You misunderstand.  It was _your_ post that convinced me Dante was correct.


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, 'cause depending on Dante's judgment will get you far.
> ...




good, follow it into imbecility


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, 'cause depending on Dante's judgment will get you far.
> ...





Dante said:


> good, follow it into imbecility





Arianrhod said:


> You misunderstand.  It was _your_ post that convinced me Dante was correct.



Yeah, you two make a cute couple ... two idiot peas in a pod.


----------



## Dante (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Have to wonder what you thought months after signing up with such a fucked up screen name. 

what a loser


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 5, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Yeah, you two make a cute couple ... two idiot peas in a pod.



You and Obiwan?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



No you aren't. You're full of shit. You said something stupid and I called you on it. Then you altered my response to cover your mistake and redirect the argument elsewhere. You are a piece of shit liar.


----------



## Dante (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


get over it and move on


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> No you aren't.



I did not _alter_ your response.  I simply saved the important part and discarded the flaming...just as I did this time.

If you're hellbent on proving me a liar, you need to start _proving_ it.  With _facts_, not screaming fits.

Otherwise one might be inclined to wonder why you're avoiding discussing the topic.

Does it embarrass you that, as a medical professional, you have in fact provided something for nothing to patients who can't afford your services?  Or is it the fact that these patients now have access to affordable care that makes you so angry?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Fuck off.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > No you aren't.
> ...



You just lied again liar.

You want to discuss the topic do you? Then why did you change it? The topic is do I have the moral responsibility to pay for someone else's healthcare?

The answer is no. Your attempt to switch it to me refusing to take care of my patients was an irrelevant diversion.

Have I gotten through your thick skull yet moron?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> You want to discuss the topic do you?



Yes.  You haven't denied treating patients who can't pay (despite its endangering your "street cred" among your fellow travelers), so we can subsume that subtopic into the main topic if you'd like.

What aspect of denial of care (which, among other things, the PPACA has had an impact on) would you like to discuss next?  Shall we keep it in the realm of finance, or can we discuss how insurers used to deny coverage for preexisting conditions?

Because preexisting conditions are no respecter of how much money you make.

Whattaya say?


----------



## Dante (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Fuck off.



Says a member in their childishly idiotic voice to go along with their imbecilic avatar


----------



## dblack (Oct 6, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



It depends. But the question has no bearing on whether you should be legally required to do so.


----------



## Dante (Oct 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...


Of course it has bearing.


----------



## dblack (Oct 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



Only if you believe government is responsible for mandating morality.


----------



## Dante (Oct 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You denying laws have a moral basis and justification? Does the government mandate morality when it threatens the death penalty for certain crimes? Is it saying to others 'this is wrong' and punishable because it is morally wrong?

I'm not saying the government should be in charge of all morality, but to deny as you have done, that morality has no bearing on whether something should become law is....

well you figure it out


----------



## dblack (Oct 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I think I have. For a society to remain free, government must avoid mandating morality and, instead, protect our rights. Murder isn't illegal because it's immoral or because it's a sin. It's illegal because it violates the rights of the person murdered.


----------



## Dante (Oct 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> I think I have. For a society to remain free, government must avoid mandating morality and, instead, protect our rights. Murder isn't illegal because it's immoral or because it's a sin. It's illegal because it violates the rights of the person murdered.


It isn't immoral to violate somebody's rights? If so, then what would you use in place of morality?


----------



## dblack (Oct 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I think I have. For a society to remain free, government must avoid mandating morality and, instead, protect our rights. Murder isn't illegal because it's immoral or because it's a sin. It's illegal because it violates the rights of the person murdered.
> ...


It might be. It might not be. Depends on your morals. In any case, I didn't say it wasn't immoral to violate someone rights. I said government shouldn't be concerned with morality. It should protect our freedom to make our own moral judgements.


----------



## Dante (Oct 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You do know the founding fathers believed the government ought to be involved in morality?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > You want to discuss the topic do you?
> ...



I thought you wanted to talk about the subject nit wit? Let me remind your malfunctioning brain of what the subject is:

"Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?"


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck off.
> ...



I told you to fuck off. Get to it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



As my post indicated.  So what have you got?  Just more flames, or something of substance?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



For the last time you stupid fuck, the subject is the question: Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for someone else's healthcare?"

And my answer is: because I am not responsible for anyone but myself.

If you try to change it to something else AGAIN, then you can just take your lying stupid ass elsewhere.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> ...the subject is the question: Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for someone else's healthcare?"



And yet again I'll tell you Yes, I know.

Those are one-syllable words.  Why do you have so much trouble understanding them?



PredFan said:


> And my answer is: because I am not responsible for anyone but myself.



Fan-fucking-tastic.  So you'll live and die alone.  No spouse, no children, no concern about your elderly parents.  Good for you.

And no need to keep repeating yourself in this thread, but I suspect you will anyway.

Knock yourself out.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > ...the subject is the question: Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for someone else's healthcare?"
> ...



So you admit that your idiotic rant about the patient care I provide at work was irrelevant. About time moron.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> So you admit that your idiotic rant about the patient care I provide at work was irrelevant. About time moron.



No.  If you believe I did, you're the moron.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 6, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit that your idiotic rant about the patient care I provide at work was irrelevant. About time moron.
> ...



Lol, you lose liar, now go play in the street. Retard.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 6, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



And miss this scintillating conversation?  Not a chance.  Stay angry.  You're adorable.  Shallow and intellectually bankrupt, but adorable.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...





Arianrhod said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



Oh, yeah, it's OBI who's running around expecting others to pay his way.  Uh-huh. 

Love watching liberals screech accusations at others for their own sins.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



I do so love that fresh, new-mown hay smell one gets from straw men.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that I am in medicine has nothing to do with me having to pay for someone else's care. I have no obligation to do so.
> ...



Ohmigod, I am so sick of ignorant leftist conflation of "if you don't give me money to pay for things, you are preventing me from having them!"

Big difference between a medical person refusing to provide care, and refusing to pay for someone else to provide it.  Duhhh.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You conveniently forgot to respond to the question.
> ...



Well, let's approach it this way.  What, if anything, do you think is an individual's sole responsibility to provide for himself, with no recourse whatsoever to picking the pockets of others via the government?

I'm not even going to address the absurdity of "Look how spiffy the economy is now!"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> [QUOTE="Hossfly]
> What's wrong with not wanting to pay for some deadbeat's Free Shit? I worked for my money for my benefit, not freeloaders.



Is that your one-size-fits-all response to everything?  Because it's not a good fit for this topic.  Try again.[/QUOTE]

Oh, yeah, "It's my money, and those people are deadbeat freeloaders" is TOTALLY off-topic for a thread entitled "Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?"  

Nothing funnier than a shitforbrains liberal trying to pretend to intellectual superiority.  It's like a dog putting on a suit and walking on his hind legs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Interesting way of saying, "I'm going to lie."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



_Non-sequitur_ much?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Interesting way of saying, "I'm going to lie."



Nice of you to warn us in advance.



Cecilie1200 said:


> _Non-sequitur_ much?



Yes, I'd say your admission that you plan to lie would qualify as a _non sequitur_.  Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 8, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting way of saying, "I'm going to lie."
> ...



LOL  The dog's on his hind legs again.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LOL  The dog's on his hind legs again.



So all you've got is _non sequiturs_.  Okay.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



He's quite the idiot, is he not?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 8, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Cecelie's a "he"?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 8, 2015)

Summing up, some people here apparently don't understand that prior to passage of the PPACA, they were already paying for other people's healthcare - in increased hospital and clinic costs that were passed along to them from people who went to the ER and were unable or unwilling to pay the four- to five-figure bill.

PredFan claims to be "in medicine," but doesn't know that?  Amazing.

Then again, PredFan doesn't seem to know how to work the PM function, either.


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 9, 2015)

Why did Obama take billions out of medicare to put towards Obamacare?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> Why did Obama take billions out of medicare to put towards Obamacare?



What's your source for that?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



No, and why even ask?

I am morally obligated to pay for the needs of the one I married and the offspring that we brought into this world. 

Ends there

If I choose to care for others that's my call, and from that point on its not yours or anyone else's business.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...


So you must be glad that more people have insurance and won't be running up your medical costs by showing up in the ER.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



I could care less

My opinion is now, and has always been, if you truly want to reduce the cost of medical costs you would make the ponzie scheme known as health insurance illegal. 

Short of that, you, and no one else really give a flying frick. You just want to use the sick to make political points. 

And that is what is truly immoral


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> I could care less



True.  You did care enough to post about it.  If you _couldn't_ care less, you wouldn't have bothered.



Pop23 said:


> My opinion is now, and has always been, if you truly want to reduce the cost of medical costs you would make the ponzie scheme known as health insurance illegal.



It's funny how many of you are now crying "single payer."  It's what most of us wanted from the beginning, but y'all shouted us down with "SOCIALISM!!111!" and we have the PPACA.  However, as more and more of you cry "single payer," it will eventually come to pass.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I could care less
> ...



Are you warped?

You asked a question, you got an answer. Deal with that Nancy

I'm crying single payer?

No, I want no government or private insurance. They're both ponzie schemes nimrod.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> You asked a question, you got an answer.



Yes, I did.  I'm not the one who's angry.



Pop23 said:


> I'm crying single payer?
> 
> No, I want no government or private insurance. They're both ponzie schemes.



Ah.  So you figure you'd be able to pay for cancer treatment or heart surgery or even a broken leg out of pocket.  That's...interesting.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > You asked a question, you got an answer.
> ...



If health insurance was illegal?

Damn straight I could


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> If health insurance was illegal?
> 
> Damn straight I could



So you want the government to make insurance illegal.  Ignoring the complexities of that for a moment, let's look at one example:

Say you're in a car accident.  You lose control of your vehicle on a rain-slick road and hit a utility pole.  There are no other vehicles involved, so it's up to your insurance company to handle the claim (unless you'd want the government to abolish auto insurance as well).  Your car's radiator is crushed, so the car is inoperable.

You suffer whiplash, a concussion, a broken ankle, several broken ribs, and possible internal damage.

When the ambulance arrives, the EMTs tell you "Sir, now that the government has abolished health insurance, we need you to pay upfront."  Depending on how far you are from the nearest hospital, that ambulance ride alone - not counting the treatment you're given before you're removed from your car and again in the ambulance on the way to the hospital - is anywhere from $800-1,300.

With me so far?

I'm guessing this is the part where you say "I'd refuse to get in the ambulance.  I'd drive myself to the hospital." Or "I'd drive home and take care of my own injuries."

Am I close?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If health insurance was illegal?
> ...



Close to being taught a lesson, yes. 

Do you think health insurance was common throughout history?

No, we muddled along just fine without it through most of human existence. And beleive it or not, there were car accidents way back then. 

Amazing how we could handle the expense prior to the establishment of health insurance and the SKYROCKETING COSTS IT CREATED.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Do you think health insurance was common throughout history?



No.  I'm quite aware of employers offering their employees health insurance post-WWII in lieu of salary increases.

I'm also aware that the original insurers were nonprofit, and that costs didn't begin to skyrocket until the for-profit insurers entered the market.



Pop23 said:


> No, we muddled along just fine without it through most of human existence. And beleive it or not, there were car accidents way back then.
> 
> Amazing how we could handle the expense prior to the establishment of health insurance and the SKYROCKETING COSTS IT CREATED.



_For-profit_ insurers.  That modifier is pivotal.

And if you think a government mandate to abolish insurance will by some Randian "free market" magic drive costs down, you'll have to show how.

Never mind that many of your elected officials are on the boards of these _for-profit_ insurers and are hardly about to bite the hand that feeds them their honoraria every year, or the fact that the insurers have some very powerful lobbyists...but how would you dismantle the health insurance industry and, even if you could, how would that magically make prices go down?

While you're pondering that (and avoiding the consequences of the hypothetical motor vehicle accident), let's return to the scene of the accident and see what happens next:

You’ve lost enough blood to merit a unit of plasma in the ambulance. Cost: $150-190.

Cost of EMTs’ services: $500-1,000.

Both paid upfront, of course or, in your no-insurance scenario, the EMTs would legally be allowed to dump you out of the ambulance to die on the roadside.

But you pay, and you’re brought to the ER.  

Cost of x-rays: $425+ each for the ankle and the ribs.
Cost of an MRI to rule out a ruptured spleen from the rib fracture: $525-900.
Blood draws: $44-107 each.

Again, keep that checkbook handy, because the ER staff is now legally allowed to refuse you services for which you cannot or will not pay.

But, hey, you’re in luck!  Your spleen is only mildly bruised, not ruptured, so you won’t need a splenectomy, which would have run you $1,664-2,064.

However, setting the ribs, aside from being excruciating, will cost up to $12,000.

And the x-ray shows that your ankle is broken.  Surgery will cost you $9,719-17,634.

You’ll also need to stay in the hospital overnight, to the tune of $1,200-2,000.

Before you can leave the hospital, you’ll be billed for every medication, surgical dressing, the crutches you’ll need until the ankle heals.  One Vicodin can set you back $22…maybe Rush can hook you up.

So, tell us again how you’d be able to pay for all that out of pocket.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think health insurance was common throughout history?
> ...



Too many assumptions being made I can't figure out where to start. 

Ever taken a tour of those wonderful MD's homes? Pay special attention to the numbers of cars and check the state attorney generals offices and see what LLC's they are members of, and what those LLC's own. 

I think you need to do some research. 

It might blow your mind. 

We'll go from there.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Too many assumptions being made I can't figure out where to start.



Actual costs of medical care are not "assumptions"; they are fact.  I realize many in this forum are allergic to facts, but that won't make them go away.

I'll make it simple for you.  Without insurance, that auto accident would cost you a minimum of $27,000 out of pocket.

A chronic illness such as MS without insurance would cost you $62,000 a year.

You must be Donald Trump, because you assure us you could afford that.



Pop23 said:


> Ever taken a tour of those wonderful MD's homes? Pay special attention to the numbers of cars and check the state attorney generals offices and see what LLC's they are members of, and what those LLC's own.



They have tours?  Like those Hollywood bus tours of Maps to the Stars?  Who knew?



Pop23 said:


> I think you need to do some research.



If you're going to question the data about hospital costs that I provided, you'll need to provide some data of your own.  Can you?



Pop23 said:


> It might blow your mind.
> 
> We'll go from there.



What amuses me is how some of you think "because I said so" is to be accepted as truth.

Present some facts and we'll go from there.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Too many assumptions being made I can't figure out where to start.
> ...



Would you actually need a tour guide to do this?

Good lord, no wonder this generation, the most educated generation ever, appears so friggin helpless. 

Genious, do the tour, check out the LLC's and THEN consider why those ribs cost so friggin much to set. 

YOURE PAYING FOR THE MD's BENTLY!


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> YOURE PAYING FOR THE MD's BENTLY!



Whereas in the Soviet Union, MDs were paid very little.  They don't earn much in China, either.  What are you recommending?

Still waiting for you to show how outlawing health insurance will magically change that.  Obviously you can't.

You're incapable of even refuting one of the amounts presented in Post 130.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > YOURE PAYING FOR THE MD's BENTLY!
> ...



Good lord, I'm obviously posting to a Doctors Kid. 

Leaches are leaches. 

I laughed my ass off when everyone was pissed off when that dentist in Minnesota killed that lion, I was pissed off when I saw the size of the dudes house, saw his car and realized it was the second time the dude paid $50,000 to hunt a lion, and what, he was 45?

If you need a report to figure out why the cost of medicine is so high......

You need a doctor, cuz you're blind kid.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> If you need a report to figure out why the cost of medicine is so high......



All I asked you was how outlawing health insurance would magically make prices go down.  You've done more dancing than the American Ballet Theater, but you haven't answered the question.

You can't.  So do some more _ grands battements_.  You're really quite good.


----------



## dblack (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Or, we could just refuse to bail out the people who fall for it. People have a way of avoiding stupidity if it causes them pain. If it doesn't, if try to regulate away the results of their stupidity, we simply get more of it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

dblack said:


> Or, we could just refuse to bail out the people who fall for it. People have a way of avoiding stupidity if it causes them pain. If it doesn't, if try to regulate away the results of their stupidity, we simply get more of it.



So do you have a Magic Plan to reduce medical costs after your government outlaws insurance?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If you need a report to figure out why the cost of medicine is so high......
> ...



Nothing will bring the cost down until the system stopes being raped. 

Glad I could help


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 9, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



Right now there are plenty of bleeding heart Liberals who say that people are morally obligated to do it.  How many of them are willing to back up those words?  I'm guessing none.  However, there are plenty, despite their claims on other issues that one person's morals shouldn't be dictated toward another, that will say we are morally bound to do so.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nothing will bring the cost down until the system stopes being raped.



All day you've been demanding that "the system" be murdered.  Interesting change of heart.



Pop23 said:


> Glad I could help



Oh, you have.  I've started a whole new thread to explore your non-hypothesis.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



Name one.

We adults are pleased that more Americans having access to affordable health insurance so that hospitals will no longer be forced to pass the costs of unpaid medical bills on to the rest of us.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Or, we could just refuse to bail out the people who fall for it. People have a way of avoiding stupidity if it causes them pain. If it doesn't, if try to regulate away the results of their stupidity, we simply get more of it.
> ...



Yes, be like me, discounting what I'm raped for that ponzie scheme called health insurance, I have paid for all but $20 of my adult health care. 

That's 40 years. 

Don't go to the friggin doctor every time you sneeze


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Yes, be like me, discounting what I'm raped for that ponzie scheme called health insurance, I have paid for all but $20 of my adult health care.
> 
> That's 40 years.
> 
> Don't go to the friggin doctor every time you sneeze



But he's got a Magic Plan to lower medical costs by doing away with insurance.

He's just too selfish to tell anyone what it is.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, be like me, discounting what I'm raped for that ponzie scheme called health insurance, I have paid for all but $20 of my adult health care.
> ...



Eliminating the Ponzie Scheme that allows the raping of the system is the plan Nancy. 

Look into medical "coding" sometime and get back with us. 

K?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> I have paid for all but $20 of my adult health care.



What a silly choice to make.  As if that's not bad enough, you want to blame someone else for your own stupid decisions?  You're from the party of "personal responsibility," amirite?



Pop23 said:


> Eliminating the Ponzie Scheme that allows the raping of the system is the plan...



First of all, the term is "Ponzi": 

Charles Ponzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're going to cite it constantly, at least learn to spell it and understand its origins.  Secondly, you keep repeating that part, but you don't explain the part that begins "And the next morning, the Prince woke up and discovered he could pay his doctor with chickens just like his great-great-grandfather did."



Pop23 said:


> Look into medical "coding" sometime and get back with us.



Which code specifically?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I have paid for all but $20 of my adult health care.
> ...



Let's get something straight first. I have paid roughly $90,000.00 in health insurance in my lifetime. I have had $20.00 covered lifetime. 

I am out $89,980.00. Yes I have been incredibly healthy, but whether that comes from my wallet, or out of my taxes, it's cash I do not have. 

So back to your question, if that 89k was still in my pocket, and someone needed it to help with a medical bills, I might help, but it is my decision, not societies.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 9, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Let's get something straight first. I have paid roughly $90,000.00 in health insurance in my lifetime. I have had $20.00 covered lifetime.
> 
> I am out $89,980.00. Yes I have been incredibly healthy, but whether that comes from my wallet, or out of my taxes, it's cash I do not have.



Then you have indeed been ripped off, but I'd have to ask why you never changed insurers.

It might be of interest to you to know that effective January 2014, insurers are required to spend 80% of premiums on providing health coverage.  Everything else - administrative costs, M&A, CEO salaries, payouts to stockholders, buying off Congresscritters - has to come from the remaining 20%.  This is a first step.

If you don't think this will motivate them to take a hard look at their relationship with pharma companies and overpriced physicians, you don't know how the system works.  

Costs will eventually be affected - and lowered - but not to where they were in your grandfather's day.  If you can think of anything that's cheaper now than it was 50 years ago, please mention it, because I can't think of a thing.

That's not to mention the advances in medicine in just the past _five_ years, much less 50. 

In the meantime, however, I'd strongly recommend you find a better insurer.  And look up "Pareto principle."




Pop23 said:


> So back to your question, if that 89k was still in my pocket, and someone needed it to help with a medical bills, I might help, but it is my decision, not societies.



Clearly.  But you and I strayed off the OP hours ago.  This is actually a more interesting conversation.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


Redundant much?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



NOOooo No.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 9, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> ...
> It might be of interest to you to know that effective January 2014, insurers are required to spend 80% of premiums on providing health coverage.  Everything else - administrative costs, M&A, CEO salaries, payouts to stockholders, buying off Congresscritters - has to come from the remaining 20%.  This is a first step.



Oh, that's not the first step.  The first step was the 14th Amendment, where the Government gave rights...  then the Progressive Income Tax... Then came Old Folks Insurance, then the Civil Rights Act, where the Government gave money to those it gave rights... then came the judicial activism, wherein the government gave the right for women to murder their pre-born children...

Socialism has taken many MANY steps up to it's providing 'free healthcare, by increasing insurance premiums by 4-5 times their actual value and simultaneously reducing the contracted values and services, specifically mandating private business... and in so doing, doing to the Insurance industry what it recently did for the Mortgage Industry.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Word salad.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 10, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pedro de San Patricio said:
> ...



You.

Hospitals shouldn't pass along the costs to the rest of us.  Those who get medical care should pay for it.  If they can't, it gives you bleeding hearts a chance to prove what you say about how much you care.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 10, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



No.



Conservative65 said:


> Hospitals shouldn't pass along the costs to the rest of us.



And now that more people have insurance, there will be fewer such instances.  You're not paying attention.  Or math is not your friend.



Conservative65 said:


> Those who get medical care should pay for it.  If they can't, it gives you bleeding hearts a chance to prove what you say about how much you care.



You can either link to any post in which that last sentence is true, or accept what I've actually said, which is that the more people with access to health insurance, the better it is.

You need to learn some new talking points.  Yours are so 2010.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 10, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You failed to mention that 4 of 5 of those now getting coverage SUBSIDIZED by someone else.  In case you were unaware, subsidized means someone else is still paying for their healthcare costs.  What a bunch of fucking leeches.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 10, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



So you'd rather pay more for hospital and clinic services.  Okay.

Out of curiosity, do you drive on interstates?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 10, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



English isn't your strong point either.  It's not my responsibility to pay for either on anyone's part.

The social welfare leeches aren't paying the taxes that fund the programs from which they benefit.  I pay the taxes that fund the interstates.  Next weak argument?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 10, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Blah-blah-blah, and you haven't answered the question.

Yes, you drive on the freeways your parents and grandparents paid for.  Leech.

You probably went to public schools, schools that your parents and grandparents and total strangers who didn't even have children paid for.  Leech.

You're probably leeching off other "free stuff," too.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 10, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I do drive on them and pay for them.  How much is that food stamp recipient paying in the taxes that fund social welfare.  NONE.  

You simply don't get the difference between someone that contributes to society and someone that exists because of people like me.  I can do without them any day of the week.  They can't do without people like me.  They won't fend for themselves.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 10, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> I do drive on them and pay for them.



You paid for the original construction?  You're older than I thought.



Conservative65 said:


> How much is that food stamp recipient paying in the taxes that fund social welfare.



There's a whole 'nother forum for bitching about food stamps.  While they're tangentially related to health (children who are malnourished grow up with a raft of diseases that burden the healthcare system), your OUTRAGE about food stamps might get more feedback in the proper forum.

And by your own definition, you're still a leech for going to public schools.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I do drive on them and pay for them.
> ...



Still making an incorrect claim?  

There's something called personal responsibility to pay to exist in society.  When are the leeches who get but don't contribute a dime going to do something for the society in which they live.  Sticking your hand out expecting others to care for you isn't contributing.  The rest of us are tired of supporting good for nothing pieces of shit who work harder seeing how much they can get for nothing than they would have to work to earn a living.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Still making an incorrect claim?



So you didn't go to public schools?



Conservative65 said:


> There's something called personal responsibility to pay to exist in society.



I agree.  And part of it is being a responsible adult who says "My parents' taxes built the bridges and interstates I drive on.  Total strangers' taxes paid for my schooling.  Jonas Salk refused to patent his polio vaccine, but gave it away so that every child in America could be immunized (until Jenny McCarthy came along).  If he'd been like Martin Shkreli, I might have died of complications of polio."

And a few dozen other examples I could give you.  Instead, I'll just point out again that you've been paying for other people's healthcare all your life.  You've also been lining the pockets of your insurer's stockholders, and getting nothing in return.

The PPACA has made it possible for more people to get insurance, so the pass-through of expenses to hospitals and to you will be less, and your insurer is required by law to spend no less than 80% of your premiums on paying for medical care.

Feel free to try to explain why those are bad things, or just go back to your pre-recorded rant.  I'll just sit here and smile benevolently.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Still making an incorrect claim?
> ...



ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing.  What you need to learn is that one person doesn't owe another person a damn thing.

You mean more like a shit eating grin from puckering up to the Liberal ass.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing.



So in protest, you'll only drive on unpaved roads from now on.

What do you plan to do about mail delivery, sanitation, first responders?  Refuse them all?  That would be the honest thing to do.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing.
> ...



I pay the taxes that fund those roads.  What taxes do the leeches getting a subsidy for healthcare pay that funds the subsidy?

If I pay the taxes that fund something, I use it because I pay for it.  When are those using social welfare programs for which they don't pay taxes going to refuse the programs?  They aren't.  They think it's owed to them even when they don't fund what pays for them.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



You pay taxes to _maintain_ those roads (unless you're in South Carolina, where the infrastructure just collapsed, making one wonder what that state's legislature was doing with the money), but someone else paid the taxes to construct them.

Total strangers paid taxes so you could go to school.

Others paid taxes long before you were born so that you could have your mail delivered and your trash picked up and first-responders come to your house in an emergency.


----------



## Anathema (Oct 11, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



NO. HELL NO. Not under any circumstance.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



So all roads were built before I started paying taxes?  Fool

I've stated I went to private school.  What taxes did someone else pay for me to go there?  Fool

You really don't have a clue about how the system works.  Fool. 

Typical bleeding heart dumbass.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> So all roads were built before I started paying taxes?



Did I say "all"?  No, I didn't.  But the interstates were built under the Eisenhower administration...before you were born.  So stay off the interstates, leech.



Conservative65 said:


> I've stated I went to private school.



Not in this forum you haven't.  So you went to _private school_?  Well, excuse me, Mr. Trump!  Private schools get government grants.  And many of their graduates have no clue how the 47% live...or is it the 99% these days?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > So all roads were built before I started paying taxes?
> ...



When you say someone else paid the taxes to construct them, it doesn't indicate any road being built by taxes I paid.

I pay the taxes to fund the building of new interstates and the taxes to maintain them.  When you can keep me off of them, I'll stay off.  Willing to try and FAIL?  Didn't think so.

You're full of excuses.  

I know how the 47% live.  They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing.  I went to private school because my parents, both of whom were far from wealthy, sacrificed in order to do so.   Unlike many parents today, they gave up lots of things to send me there.  Too many parents think their kids deserve what mine funded because I had it.  Let their parents pay or let them do without.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> I know how the 47% live.  They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing.



You have proof that 47% of Americans are on welfare?  This I've got to see...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I know how the 47% live.  They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing.
> ...



The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

While, according to my source, 35.4% of Americans get means tested social welfare, 47% or more don't pay income taxes.  That means the difference of approximately 12% get benefits from living in a society funded by income taxes they don't pay.  You might think that's good but those of us constantly demanded to fund those leeches don't.  I'm sorry is someone can't make but $7.25/hour but my parents didn't sacrifice to send me to school in order that I earn more so someone that can't cut it gets a share of it.  I don't owe them a damn thing.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



35.4% is not 47%, and I wonder how that number would look if you removed Walmart employees.  Then if you consider that Walmart has driven every other employer out of some areas so that they're the only game in town (and getting $6 billion a year in tax breaks), you might begin to understand why some people are paid only $7.25 an hour.

However, once there's a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 an hour, that will change.

BTW, I hope you're not voting for Ben Carson.  His mother was on welfare and food stamps.  Should she have just let him starve?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...




Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%.  I see you didn't read the link.

Walmart employees are paid $7.25 because they have to be paid that.  The law, not their skill level, dictates it.  

Are you saying that paying someone $15/hour will help the situation?  Perhaps you should look at what happened in Seattle when the wage went up.  Instead of people doing what you idiots claim they wanted to do and earn a living, many asked for reduced hours so their benefits wouldn't get cut.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%.  I see you didn't read the link.



You _assume_ I didn't read the link.  Not quite the same thing.



Conservative65 said:


> Walmart employees are paid $7.25 because they have to be paid that.  The law, not their skill level, dictates it.



You mean they can't be paid _less_ than that.  Because if Sam Walton's grandkids could figure out a way to pay them less, they would.  Instead, they make the taxpayer pay the difference.




Conservative65 said:


> Are you saying that paying someone $15/hour will help the situation?  Perhaps you should look at what happened in Seattle when the wage went up.



I suspect you're using data from when the law was passed, almost 18 months ago.

And remember, under your rubric, Ben Carson would have starved.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%.  I see you didn't read the link.
> ...



By the law requiring they get paid $7.25/hour, it means they make more than the skills to do their jobs are worth.  

The taxpayers shouldn't be funding anything for them.  If their skill level is so low they can't make it, the taxpayers shouldn't be funding it. Blame the bleeding hearts.  They make it where a low skilled worker of their own doing gets a handout.  

Under my rubric, Ben Carson overcame poverty.  He didn't simply accept someone supporting him like so many multi-generational social welfare leeches.  He decided it wasn't the way to go.  Wish more were like him.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%.  I see you didn't read the link.
> ...



I'm using data from less than 18 weeks ago when the stories began coming out that Seattle workers were asking for less hours.  

The date of this source is 7/26/2015.  After Getting $15 Minimum Wage, Seattle Employees Now Want Less Hours So They Can Stay On Welfare


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> By the law requiring they get paid $7.25/hour, it means they make more than the skills to do their jobs are worth.



The CEO of Costco disagrees.  But what does he know?









Conservative65 said:


> The taxpayers shouldn't be funding anything for them.



But you are.  Actually, given that recent $6 billion tax break, you're funding the Waltons.

Say more about "leeches."


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > By the law requiring they get paid $7.25/hour, it means they make more than the skills to do their jobs are worth.
> ...



I've said all I need to say about leeches like you.  

The CEO of Costco can disagree.  It's his choice.  I don't have a choice but to subsidize leeches.  Bleeding hearts like you mandate it.  You're ruining this country and are too fucking stupid to realize it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> I've said all I need to say about leeches like you.



So someone who pays for their own health insurance is a "leech"?  That's hilarious.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I've said all I need to say about leeches like you.
> ...



You pay for your entire health insurance?  Bullshit.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Prove I don't.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You made the claim you do.  It's on you to prove YOUR claim.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



  

How much of your personal information may I have in exchange? 

Funniest thing I've read all day...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You're the one that made the claim that you paid for all of yours.  It's on you to prove it and since you won't, your claim is dismissed as false.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


By someone who has habitually mischaracterized me?  Yeah, actually, I can use your disinformation going forward.

Summing up, what should be no surprise to anyway, this thread has confirmed the fact that for some people "MINE, MINE, MINE!" is the overarching philosophy.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You made the claim about what YOU did.  Prove it or my characterization of you is right on target.

Damn right I look out for me and my family.  That makes me no different than the welfare leeches who demand they be supported.  Are you willing to claim those on social welfare actually give a shit about where the money comes from as long as they get their handouts?  If you do, you are a moron.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



So you're expecting "free stuff."

Seriously, what do you have to trade for my personal information?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I provide for my family by earning it not by demanding someone that earned it give it to me.  I don't expect anything for free unlike the worthless pieces of shit you would have get my money.

Still won't prove your claim?  Didn't think so.  You're the typical lefty that makes claims you won't prove then expects people to believe it because you said it.  I won't give you anything.  You made the claim and it's your place to back it up.  If you don't like being expected to support what you say, don't say things that need to be supported.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> I provide for my family by earning it not by demanding someone that earned it give it to me.



You, too?  I knew there must be at least one thing we had in common.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I provide for my family by earning it not by demanding someone that earned it give it to me.
> ...



You demand I support those that don't provide for their families.  If you want someone to have what you think they need, give it to them yourself.  If you want me to provide it to them, have the guts to come and try to collect it yourself.  Bet you don't show.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Your own posts supporting social welfare programs and Obamacare subsidies.    Are you claiming you don't support those things?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I support a strong, healthy America.  It amazes me how many on the right don't.  You don't mind paying the Waltons' taxes for them, though.


----------



## dblack (Oct 11, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



We can keep ourselves, and our communities, healthy without abusing the power of government.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 11, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Yes, we are.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Sadly, we are abusing government, by using it as a tool for mandating behavior. Authoritarian government isn't sustainable.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Sadly,  too many want their behavior mandated at a costs to the rest of us who don't.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



So you won't admit that you support those things.  If you support continued social welfare programs and Obama subsidies, you don't.  Diverting away from a direct question proves what you won't admit.  Didn't think you had the guts.  Most of your lowly kind don't.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



This reminds me of those Christians who invented the "War on Christmas" so they could blubber about how oppressed they were.  I'd recommend the same cure for you: Take a trip to North Korea.  Then tell use about "authoritarian government."

You want to be members of the club without paying dues.  You're the real freeloaders.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Then let's change that. The current approach simply formalizes it.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> You want to be members of the club without paying dues.  You're the real freeloaders.



You clearly have no understanding of what I want.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > You want to be members of the club without paying dues.  You're the real freeloaders.
> ...



Sometimes the club membership is collected at the door, and the members aren't forced to become members at all. 

But then again, a country founded on respecting the individual ain't exactly the club you make it to be.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

The premise of this thread is that anyone who is opposed socializing medical costs via government, is opposed to helping others. But that's not necessarily, or even (I'd argue) usually, the case. Limited government isn't about crushing altruism or community safety nets. It's about recognizing that government is the wrong tool for that job.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



What do you mean?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > You want to be members of the club without paying dues.  You're the real freeloaders.
> ...



I only know what you post.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Forced participation in something should never be equated with "club" membership. It is a socialist marketing tool. 

I guess, flipping the OP on its head......

Since I have contributed so much to other people's health care, and taken so little, are others morally obligated to pay me back?

Hmmmmmm, things that make you go hmmmm.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Not even that. The debate isn't over paying dues, it's over how much power the "club" has over its members. We need government to protect our freedom to live our lives as we wish, not to take care of us and tell us how to live.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Forced participation in something should never be equated with "club" membership.



A lot of people were threatening to move to Canada if Obama was reelected.  They didn't, of course, but they had the option.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Agreed. I find this notion of being 'indebted' to government particularly troubling, and the part of the welfare state that winds up being so authoritarian. If a given government "service" benefits some more than others, we should either get rid of it, or learn to live with it. Blaming the victim, and lording it over recipients of 'benefits' is a bad way to go, and makes me wonder about the motivation behind providing the benefits in the first place.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

I'll ask the same question here that I did in the other thread: How many of you raised the same objection to invading Iraq?


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> I'll ask the same question here that I did in the other thread: How many of you raised the same objection to invading Iraq?



Hmmm... not sure about the "same objection", as it seems like a very different issue, but I was adamantly opposed to invading Iraq.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I don't mind paying my dues and do.  That's why I can use the things being a paying member of the club.  Too many want to join the club and either not have to pay their dues to get the same or expect someone else to pay those dues for them because they can't.  

If someone can't buy what I can buy, either get one of you so called compassionate bleeding hearts to do it for them or do without.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Forced participation in something should never be equated with "club" membership.
> ...



Ever wonder what happened to all those celebrities who promised to leave the country if George W. Bush was elected president? 


The original statements: 

Eddie Vedder - "I'm moving to a different country if little Damien II gets elected."   He did if you consider Hawaii a different country.  

Alec Baldwin - was never quoted directly, but reportedly made a statement to his wife Kim Basinger, who was later quoted in Focus magazine saying that Alec "might leave the country if Bush is elected president ... and then I'd probably have to go too."   Baldwin said his wife didn't speak to Focus magazine then later recanted which means admitted he lied.

Barbara Streisand - "I don't think you'll see me around here for at least four years."   Streisand said that meant she wouldn't go to the White House.  No great loss for anyone.

Robert Altman - "If George Bush is elected president, I'm leaving for France."   Despite being caught on film saying that, Altman said he was misquoted.

Pierre Salinger - "If Bush wins, I'm going to leave the country and spend the rest of my life in France."  He actually left and it's no great loss either.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference.  I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.


----------



## LOki (Oct 12, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


No.

That was easy.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference.  I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.



People allocating their money according to their preference isn't taxation. It's the free market. And you're right, if more money was allocated via taxpayer preference, and less via state mandate, there'd be far fewer wars and the things that matter most to us would get the most funding.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference.  I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.
> ...


While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see how preferential taxation could be considered the free market, because it would have to be delimited by saying "You have to pay x-amount of tax, but check one or more of the following boxes to decide where you want your taxes to go."

In a true free market, there'd always be clowns who said "I ain't paying taxes at all."


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 Which means you don't really agree with the rest of my post, eh? 



> because it would have to be delimited by saying "You have to pay x-amount of tax, but check one or more of the following boxes to decide where you want your taxes to go."



Right, which I wouldn't call accurately representing preferences, as many taxpayers would prefer to spend their money on things not in any of the 'boxes'.



> In a true free market, there'd always be clowns who said "I ain't paying taxes at all."



Why is why taxes can't be allocated according to taxpayer preference. Government just doesn't work that way. Government is for those social concerns where it can't be left to individual preference; when conformity is truly necessary.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



On the contrary.  Let's establish that before I answer the rest.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference.  I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.



I've driven on many of the roads that were damaged.  I guess you don't think almost 2 feet of rain in a 24 hour period can damage even the best of situation.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference.  I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.
> ...



I was thinking of the TVA-era dams that collapsed because they hadn't been upgraded.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



So you don't think that much rain could damage even the best of situations.  Got it.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little _more_ input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"?  (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.)  Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


No, you don't "got it."  You're attributing things to me that I neither stated nor implied.

Now, unless you can prove that every single one of those dams would have collapsed even if they'd been upgraded the week before, maybe you should try something else.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should not be a matter of government in the first place.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So, um, where does the revenue come from, then?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 12, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


That depends on your morals.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Taxpayers. Though I'm not sure what you're getting at.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Just realized I had a type in my post that was surely confusing. Corrected above: "And if it isn't necessary, it should be a matter of government in the first place." should read "And if it isn't necessary, it should NOT be a matter of government in the first place.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Yes, that does make more sense - thanks!

So then we come down to the definition of "necessary," which will vary widely depending on who you ask.  My list springs from that funny little phrase that goes "to promote the general welfare."

Of course, to the ignorant, "welfare," as in a state of wellbeing has been conflated with "OMFG, teh EVUL WELFARE," i.e., "people who don't work and want free stuff" and, unfortunately, they may be ignorant, but they're also extremely loud.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



More narrow-minded than ignorant. The problem with setting up government to provide for our welfare is that everyone has a different vision of "the good life". And when government is in charge of deciding who gets what, getting what you want becomes a matter of manipulating government (which has the power to force others to comply) rather than persuading others to give it to you voluntarily.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



See, and that's not at all what I have in mind when I think of "promote the general welfare."  YMMV.


----------



## dblack (Oct 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> See, and that's not at all what I have in mind when I think of "promote the general welfare."  YMMV.



I understand that. That's exactly why I'm saying having government decide what constitutes the general welfare, outside narrowly defined constitutional powers, is a bad idea. It certainly shouldn't be up to a vote. I think the freedom for each of us to strive for our own individual vision of "welfare" is more important than a guarantee of someone else's.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > See, and that's not at all what I have in mind when I think of "promote the general welfare."  YMMV.
> ...



I'd say the only guarantees should be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but none of those is as simple as it seems.  And any individual vision has to be predicated on the degree to which that vision can be realized.  For one thing, "all men are created equal" - from the pen of a slave-owner - is pretty heavy on the irony.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL  The dog's on his hind legs again.
> ...



You have no fucking clue what that word means, do you?  You just saw it in my post, thought, "Fancy foreign insult I can parrot back", and included it in every post since.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I can't say I'm all that interested in being flattered by you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 15, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



He'd be a dancing monkey in a circus if he had twenty more IQ points and was a whole lot cuter.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

So the "must post content before you flame" rule only applies to some, I see.

However, I remember back before the PPACA how all of you rose up with one voice decrying the fact that your hospital and clinic costs were going up because people were using ERs for non-emergent conditions and you all demanded insurance reform.

Oh, wait.


----------



## dblack (Oct 15, 2015)

Back to the topic, I'm not unwilling to pay for other people's health care. I unwilling to support laws that force others to do so.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

dblack said:


> Back to the topic, I'm not unwilling to pay for other people's health care. I unwilling to support laws that force others to do so.



We never left the topic.  Did you feel that way when you had to pay more for hospital and clinic services to cover for those who overused the ER prior to 2014?

My guess is, you didn't even know you were paying more then.


----------



## dblack (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the topic, I'm not unwilling to pay for other people's health care. I unwilling to support laws that force others to do so.
> ...



No, I was aware of it. I was opposed to EMTALA out of the gate. Unfunded mandates like that are always bad policy.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So you're more a _Life of Brian_ type of guy.


----------



## dblack (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



What do you mean?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



"Bring out your dead!  Bring out your dead!"


Don't treat 'em, just let 'em die and toss the bodies on the cart later.

But you'd still have to pay the undertaker and his staff.


----------



## dblack (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, that's "Holy Grail", but I get your point. And it makes the same assumption as the OP - that being opposed to ill-conceived laws forcing "compassion" is the same thing as having no compassion. I don't want to see poor people turned away at hospitals, and I'd probably avoid hospitals that implemented such a policy.

But EMTALA, and similar unfunded mandates, are a copout. They're an attempt to outsource the safety net to private interests. If we want to ensure that everyone is guaranteed emergency services, we should pay for it legitimately through taxes. Passing a law that forces for-profit companies to do it is chickenshit.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

dblack said:


> Well, that's "Holy Grail", but I get your point.



D'oh!  Of course you're right...it's been a while since I've seen either film.



dblack said:


> And it makes the same assumption as the OP - that being opposed to ill-conceived laws forcing "compassion" is the same thing as having no compassion. I don't want to see poor people turned away at hospitals, and I'd probably avoid hospitals that implemented such a policy.
> 
> But EMTALA, and similar unfunded mandates, are a copout. They're an attempt to outsource the safety net to private interests. If we want to ensure that everyone is guaranteed emergency services, we should pay for it legitimately through taxes. Passing a law that forces for-profit companies to do it is chickenshit.



I find myself agreeing with most of this, and maybe it can be addressed in the next round of reform, but I have to tell you, if anyone thought this board was representative of Americans, they'd find very little compassion and a lot of "ME, ME, MEEEEEEE!"  JMO.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> So the "must post content before you flame" rule only applies to some, I see.
> 
> However, I remember back before the PPACA how all of you rose up with one voice decrying the fact that your hospital and clinic costs were going up because people were using ERs for non-emergent conditions and you all demanded insurance reform.
> 
> Oh, wait.



When did this happen? I've been here quite a while and I never heard that.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > So the "must post content before you flame" rule only applies to some, I see.
> ...


Never.  Which was the point.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Hmm...well, I don't see the point then but, it might just be past my bedtime.


----------



## hunarcy (Oct 15, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



No


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




LOL...fair enough!  It's kind of a meme when someone ends a post with "Oh, wait," it means the thing they just described never happened.


----------



## dblack (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's "Holy Grail", but I get your point.
> ...



Well, yeah. I see that too. And it's frustrating because we push each other into corners - to the point that liberals demonize all business owners as cruel robber barons and conservatives blame the victims of poverty, shaming them as though the welfare state was their idea. The vast majority of reasonable people aren't radicalized in that way, but it is getting worse - or seems to be. 

This is really what I see as the key difference between libertarians and conservatives. Libertarians oppose the welfare state for the same reasons they oppose the police state. Conservatives don't like it because they believe it rewards the "sin" of poverty.

In my view, liberals and conservatives agree on the one thing libertarians oppose the most, the notion that government exists to impose morality on society. Libertarians want a government that protects our freedom to decide for ourselves what is moral and live accordingly.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

My only moral code is "If it harm no one, do what you will."  So much time, money, and energy is squandered on victimless crimes, and now that so many prison systems have been privatized, it seems as if the only goal is to fill them.

I also believe that a country whose citizens are healthy, educated, and have access to training for the jobs that country needs filled is a country that's able to compete in an increasingly global society.

"American Exceptionalism" does more harm than good, IMO.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

*2016 DAKOTACAREONE Plan Summaries*
This information is provided as a summary of the 2016 DAKOTACARE*ONE* plans offered outside of the Marketplace.  DAKOTACARE will not be offering plans inside the Marketplace in 2016.  You will be able to get a quote on the 2016 plans when Open Enrollment begins on November 1, 2015.


----------



## dblack (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> My only moral code is "If it harm no one, do what you will."  So much time, money, and energy is squandered on victimless crimes, and now that so many prison systems have been privatized, it seems as if the only goal is to fill them.
> 
> I also believe that a country whose citizens are healthy, educated, and have access to training for the jobs that country needs filled is a country that's able to compete in an increasingly global society.



But should we create victimless crimes in pursuit of that goal?



> "American Exceptionalism" does more harm than good, IMO.



Yeah. I dunno what that's all about. Neo-con bullshit is all I get out of it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > My only moral code is "If it harm no one, do what you will."  So much time, money, and energy is squandered on victimless crimes, and now that so many prison systems have been privatized, it seems as if the only goal is to fill them.
> ...



Not sure I know what you mean.



dblack said:


> > "American Exceptionalism" does more harm than good, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I dunno what that's all about. Neo-con bullshit is all I get out of it.



That's pretty much it.  "We don't need to study how anyone else does things.  We're AMURICANS!"  See also: Hillary's sound byte about Denmark.


----------



## dblack (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, creating crimes is what government does. It's how it exercises power. It creates laws and enforces them. When we use government to pursue goals that aren't actually protecting victims, we're creating victimless crimes. So when we create government programs with otherwise laudable goals like making people healthier, or better educated, we're creating victimless crimes and making criminals out of anyone who doesn't want to go along with those plans. Anyone who refuses to pay for these programs, or otherwise abide by the mandates they impose (eg the individual mandate introduced by PPACA), is branded a criminal and punished likewise.



Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > > "American Exceptionalism" does more harm than good, IMO.
> ...



We just need to study them with a full accounting of the liberty they sacrifice in pursuit of their goals. And also with a recognition of the differences in the politics and societies involved. Look what happened in our country when we tried to socialize health care. Did we get socialized medicine? No. We got a mandate permanently chaining us to corporate health care.

We also need to study them with a longer lens and not just focus on the last fifty years. Fascism is a meme that just keeps coming back around. It will remain tempting, as long as we have competing nations and weak world governance, because it thrives on the idea that government can make us "better" (smarter, healthier, wealthier, etc...). If there is anything to American Exceptionalism, it's in the relatively unique idea that government isn't there to tell us how to live, but rather to protect our freedom to live as we wish.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

To me American Exceptionalism can be distilled down to "We don't need no stinkin'..." [fill in the blank].

Certain segments of American society believe that our way is the only way and refuse to even study other countries' ways of doing things...not to mimic them, but to take the good things about them and adapt them to the American way of life.

But, no.  We can't have Nice Things.  We're Americans, dammit!

Another term for that is "self-defeating pigheadedness," IMO.


----------



## dblack (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> To me American Exceptionalism can be distilled down to "We don't need no stinkin'..." [fill in the blank].
> 
> Certain segments of American society believe that our way is the only way and refuse to even study other countries' ways of doing things...not to mimic them, but to take the good things about them and adapt them to the American way of life.
> 
> ...



That's one way to look at it. You might also acknowledge that people simply have different ideas about what Nice Things means. One of the benefits of being a nation built on waves of immigrants is that it forced us to face that fact regularly and, perhaps even by necessity, learn to accommodate it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > To me American Exceptionalism can be distilled down to "We don't need no stinkin'..." [fill in the blank].
> ...



Something else you and I can agree on.  But those who evoke American Exceptionalism tend to be of the Donald Trump "Let's build a Great Big Wall and keep everyone who doesn't look like us and speak English out."  They tend to have a sketchy idea of history at best.

They also seem to think that rights are a commodity - that, for example, if one group of people is granted equal rights (minorities, gays, trans people) it means the majority group will have some rights taken away from them.

Look at the whole thing around Kim Davis, or the "I refuse to bake you a gay cake" nonsense.


----------



## Freiheit (Oct 16, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



Tell me exactly why you think I am obligated to provide payment.  If you feel such an obligation I understand and support your choice, why does you obligation include me or anyone else?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 17, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



That's easy.  YOU write a check.  If you can't, don't demand someone else do it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 17, 2015)

Freiheit said:


> Pedro de San Patricio said:
> 
> 
> > Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?
> ...



The challenge I make to people like Pedro who ask those types of question is for them to write a check.   I've found that many will say they would IF they could meaning they can't but expect someone else to do it so they can feel good for thinking about it.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Oct 17, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


No.

No one is morally obligated to another for anything


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.  

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy.  Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.
> 
> Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.
> 
> ...



I suspect that if you took government out of the question, you'd get different reactions. And get closer to the truth regarding the morality question. My problem with threads like this, at least on a politics board, is that they usually make the assumption that opposition to government programs that force the issue is the same thing as rejection of the moral obligation. And it's not.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.
> ...



True, there's this mythology among the people with a death-grip on their wallets that Gubmint Bad (unless it's kicking ass in the Middle East or building a wall along the entire southern border) and possibly run by aliens (the ET kind) if not Secret Muslims that "If government would just get out of the way, charities would pick up the slack."

They, of course, would not be contributing to those charities.  That's for some other poor sucker to do.


----------



## LOki (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.
> 
> Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.
> 
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

It's amazing to me how many of you don't realize how much you paid for other people's healthcare before the PPACA.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> To me American Exceptionalism can be distilled down to "We don't need no stinkin'..." [fill in the blank].
> 
> Certain segments of American society believe that our way is the only way and refuse to even study other countries' ways of doing things...not to mimic them, but to take the good things about them and adapt them to the American way of life.
> 
> ...



No, Chuckles, Americans are famously willing to mug other cultures and rifle their pockets for loose ideas.  The problem is that not everyone agrees on what constitutes "nice things".  Contrary to your obvious belief, we do not all think other cultures are spiffy and superior and simply object to them because they're "furriners".  We actually just don't like their cultures, and feel that if we wanted to live in those cultures, we would move there.

I read an article on this very subject the other day, and thought it made some apropos points, to the effect that transplanting one nation's programs and systems onto another is often futile if the receiving nation doesn't have the cultural background that goes with it.

_Denmark is on the mind of Francis Fukuyama, whose Political Order and Political Decay has now been issued in paperback, to the delight of cheapskate readers everywhere. Fukuyama, borrowing from a group of developmental economists, introduces his readers to the phrase “isomorphic mimicry,” by which he means the error that poor and developing countries make when they adopt the formal institutions of the developed world in the absence of the underlying values, habits, and culture that make those institutions effective. This is part of the problem he calls — surprise — “getting to Denmark.” Fukuyama: The problem is that Denmark did not get to be Denmark in a matter of months or years. *Contemporary Denmark — and all other developed countries — gradually evolved modern institutions over the course of centuries.* If outside powers try to impose their own models of good institutions on a country, they are likely to produce what Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock, and Matt Andrews call *“isomorphic mimicry”: a copying of the outward forms of Western institutions but without their substance.*

Aping the superficial attractive forms of alien polities is not an error limited to the poor and the backward. Our progressive friends argued that Obamacare is just like the Swiss health-care system, which is generally quite highly regarded, and it is, with one important difference: *Switzerland is full of Swiss people and the United States is not. The Swiss health-care system turns out to be poorly suited for a country that isn’t Swiss.* Any bets on how well the Danish welfare state is going to play in Mississippi and New Jersey?

Read more at: Democratic Debate & Bernie Sanders -- Denmark's Example Isn't What He Thinks It is | National Review Online_


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I realize that anything outside of the most childish "All or nothing" comprehension is nigh-on impossible for leftists, but DO try to grasp the difference between "people who come here illegally" and "anyone who doesn't look like us".  It's not really all THAT nuanced a distinction.  Even you should be able to wrap your two functioning brain cells around it.



Arianrhod said:


> They also seem to think that rights are a commodity - that, for example, if one group of people is granted equal rights (minorities, gays, trans people) it means the majority group will have some rights taken away from them.
> 
> Look at the whole thing around Kim Davis, or the "I refuse to bake you a gay cake" nonsense.



And again you display to us how egregiously proud of being a close-minded bigot you truly are.  God forbid you ever so much as listen to what other people think, let alone make any effort to understand them.  It's so much easier to just demonize them and fling ideological shit at them like a monkey in a zoo, isn't it?

Calling something a "right" doesn't mean it really is.  So yes, defining the word "right" as "the way I want the world to be" does, in fact, have the net result of denying TRUE rights to those you don't like (which, of course, was the actual point of the whole exercise, and please don't think we're as dumb and shortsighted as you and can't recognize that).


----------



## Flopper (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Back to the topic, I'm not unwilling to pay for other people's health care. I unwilling to support laws that force others to do so.


That is what insurance is all about.  You are always paying for other peoples healthcare.  However, I know that's what you mean.  

The healthcare that others receive or don't receive in your community effects you in indirect ways but it does effects you.  More healthy communities are more productive and happier.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.
> 
> Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.
> 
> ...



Do you understand that the Golden Rule is "Do unto others" not "We will make you do unto others"?  It's an instruction to behave a certain way, not a guarantee of being forced to behave that way.

Leftists love to parrot, "You can't legislate morality", but never seem to understand that that applies to THEIR morality, too.

Speaking of hypocrisy, your posts are just rife with it, considering all this preaching about, "You need to be moral and exactly match MY PERSONAL STANDARD of how good people should be!" when there's not one single snowball's chance in Hell that you would EVER tolerate that exact same attitude from anyone on the right.

It is my very great pleasure to remind you yet again that you are nobody's moral standard, nor are anyone that people give a tin shit about impressing.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It is my very great pleasure to remind you yet again that you are nobody's moral standard, nor are anyone that people give a tin shit about impressing.



"Is" anyone.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> It's amazing to me how many of you don't realize how much you paid for other people's healthcare before the PPACA.



It's amazing to me that you have so assiduously avoided any contact with people who aren't exactly like you that you don't realize we DO know this, and we bitched about it nonstop, and it was one of our major objections to Obamacare that it already sucked.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > It is my very great pleasure to remind you yet again that you are nobody's moral standard, nor are anyone that people give a tin shit about impressing.
> ...



Actually, fucknut, that particular typo should have been "nor are YOU anyone".

There is just no end to you sounded like the dumbest person in the room, is there?  Even my mistakes are smarter than you are.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



So either way you made an error while trying to impress me with your brilliance.  Got it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 17, 2015)

Social Contract Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Very relevant ^^^ if one wants to have an informed opinion.


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do? 

Either way, I don't see much sense in attacking the people or second-guessing their motivations. Either their arguments add up, or they don't


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?



Improve prenatal care.  Improve the schools. Reestablish and expand welfare-to-work programs.  Charities can only do some of that with the revenues they have. 



dblack said:


> Either way, I don't see much sense in attacking the people or second-guessing their motivations. Either their arguments add up, or they don't



When their arguments consist primarily of "ME, ME, MEEEEE!" I'll call them on it.


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?
> ...



Maybe I wasn't clear. What I'm asking is, if they _couldn't_ use legislation to achieve these goals, would voters support charities and others working on similar problems? 

There's a bit of a contradiction in the idea that we can't achieve noble social goals without democratic government action. If there is consensus that we should help the poor (or invest in any other public good) then we can make it happen. If there is no such consensus, how do these laws get passed in the first place?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'm inclined to look at the history of the 19th century, where tens of thousands of children froze to death in NYC alone every winter, and where the only reason upper-class "do-gooders" established charities is because Horace Greeley told them that if they helped poor people they'd be less likely to be murdered in their beds by criminals desperate to feed their families.

I have no desire to return to that way of life.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe. Maybe not. What would you do? What do you think the majority of voters, those who currently support state welfare, would do?
> ...


To suggest that charitable organizations can effectively supplant government social programs is worse than a mere fantasy — it's a cynical and dangerous fantasy.  When times are at their worst and help is needed the most is exactly when charitable contributions are often the lowest.   

According to the CBO, only one 1/3 of charitable contributions go to the poor.  Another problem is that charitable given is based on emotional appeal.  For example a charity campaign to save the tigers  had such a strong emotional appeal it raised millions more than it needed. Meanwhile a campaign to raise money for boys and girls clubs falls on it's face because it had little emotional appeal.


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Me neither. Sounds terrible. Tens thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone! But that also sounds a bit implausible, don't you think?

Regardless, can you really not imagine how we might achieve worthwhile social goals without coercion?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



There are reputable sources for those figures.  I can dig them up if you want.

I don't need to imagine how to fix it; the answer is in the 1950s, when the corporate tax rate was 50% and the top individual tax rate was 91%, and the U.S. prospered.

This was under a Republican president.

I'd also address something that would have been considered treasonous in the 1950s - outsourcing jobs.  Penalize companies that do it; reward companies that don't.


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Please do. I'd love to read up on it.



> I don't need to imagine how to fix it; the answer is in the 1950s, when the corporate tax rate was 50% and the top individual tax rate was 91%, and the U.S. prospered.



I said _without_ coercion. Can you imagine Americans working to alleviate poverty without government forcing them to?


> This was under a Republican president.



Yep. Reagan was the President who signed EMTALA into law. I see precious little difference between Republicans and Democrats on these issues. Both parties are intent on using the power of the state to control society - for our own good, of course.


----------



## LOki (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Meh.

Sometimes I regard Malthus as an optimist.

People aren't an endangered species; there's no reason to treat them like one.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Please do. I'd love to read up on it.



The exact figure is in a hardcover book I no longer have in my possession, but if you want an in-depth eye-witness report on what life in one major American city was like just before WWI , there's this:

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Please do. I'd love to read up on it.
> ...



Heh... I don't have time to read an entire book. Can you point me to the section that documents tens of thousands of children freezing to death, every winter, in NYC alone?


----------



## LOki (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


As I indicated, I no longer have the hardcover book where I found the number of homeless kids who froze every winter.  (AFAIC, one is too many, but there ya go.)

And you don't have to read the entire book I linked to.  It's broken down into (short) chapters.  Chapters 15-17 will give you some information.


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Alright. I browse it. But I should be clear that my only interest in reading it, or asking for further details in the first place, is because I find the claim you made to be preposterous. I'd agree that one is too many, but I don't really see how our society would stand by and let such a tragedy happen year after year. I certainly don't think government mandates are the only thing preventing it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



We sometimes forget how slowly news traveled in those times.  It was occasionally reported in the local newspapers, but the upper classes didn't want to know about it or dismissed the deaths of "street Arabs" as exaggerated or "the poor are always with us."  Advances in photography made it possible for Riis and his contemporaries to go into the darkest slums with flash attachments and quite literally illuminate the problem.  

His reporting earned him death threats.  Besides, he was an immigrant and didn't travel in the right social circles.  Horace Greeley, on the other hand, was a social Brahmin and an editor, not a mere reporter, so he could hobnob with the elite.  He was savvy enough to know he couldn't appeal to their generosity, so he tapped into their fears.

The wealthy people uptown were terrified that marauding gangs from downtown would break into their homes, murder them in their beds, and steal there stuff.  Greeley warned them that unchecked poverty would only increase the likelihood that this would happen.  Suddenly the Ladies Who Lunch were overseeing the creation of soup kitchens and settlement houses.

But the real changes came after WWI, because something had to be done for the wounded returning from the trenches.  Then came the Spanish flu, which didn't care how much money you had, so medical care was expanded, etc.


----------



## dblack (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You seem to be taking up the argument of those who claim private charity would compensate for government welfare if state safety nets were phased out. To be clear, I'm _not_ making that claim. I don't think it would be as dire as you've predicted, but I'm sure privately supported charity would be more selective and offer nothing like the blanket security of government programs. But to me, it's irrelevant.

As I've said, I oppose the welfare state because it attempts to legislate morality.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

^I guess I'm talking too much and saying too little. 

I don't believe that NGOs could pick up the slack, not at all.

It's just the alibi right-wing extremists use.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Every single tax payer dollar spent is considered coercion by many taxpayers.  I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



It's called a typo, shitforbrains.  If that's the best argument you have, you should probably go join a knitting chat.  And we all know, that's the best argument you have.  Begone.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's called a typo...



Yes, it is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Tens of thousands?  Puhleeze.  The leading causes of premature death (those under 75) in New York State for 2013 (the last year for which complete data is available) were cancer, heart disease, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and diabetes.  Diabetes claimed 1,937, so wherever exposure to the elements falls in that list, it killed fewer than 2,000 people total in the entire state.

Leading Causes of Premature Death (Death before age 75), New York State, 2004-2013


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Leading Causes of Premature Death (Death before age 75), New York State, 2004-2013



dblack and I were discussing the 19th century.


----------



## dblack (Oct 18, 2015)

Flopper said:


> ... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.



Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You'd think an annual tragedy of this scale would be mentioned somewhere beside this precous book of yours that you cannot produce.

I'd say there's little worry for "returning" to some time where 10,000 children froze to death every winter in NYC... mostly because no such time ever existed.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It was, in newspaper accounts of the time and in numerous books then and since.  (Hint: this was before the Internet.  In fact, it was before radio and TV.  Hard to imagine there ever was such a time, huh?)


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


No it wasn't.



Arianrhod said:


> (Hint: this was before the Internet.  In fact, it was before radio and TV.  Hard to imagine there ever was such a time, huh?)


Hard to imagine information from before the internet could possibly find its way on to the internet. Funny.

Do you think that if in ANY year, a third of all deaths in NYC were EVER attributed to children freezing to death, there would be some mention of it in some source searchable on the internet?

(Hint: Real news pre-dating the internet finds its way onto the internet... particularly if it involves tens of thousands children in NYC freezing to death.)


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > It was, in newspaper accounts of the time and in numerous books then and since.
> ...



So we're to assume you've read every newspaper published in NYC (there were over 120 of them in the 19th century) - or at least been to the Main Library to scan the microfiche - and found no mention of poverty, starvation, and death?

Also, you're about to convince us that the book I linked to (first edition published in 1890) doesn't exist?

Fascinating!  Say more about this...


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


No. We're just not to assume ANY newspaper anywhere reported 10,000 children froze to death in NYC every year, just because you say you saw it somewhere.



Arianrhod said:


> ... - or at least been to the Main Library to scan the microfiche - and found no mention of poverty, starvation, and death?


No. But I am certain that every one of them mentioned poverty, starvation, and death.

Do you think that if in ANY year, a third of all deaths in NYC were EVER attributed to children freezing to death, there would be some mention of it in some source searchable on the internet?

No? FASCINATING!



Arianrhod said:


> Also, you're about to convince us that the book I linked to (first edition published in 1890) doesn't exist?
> 
> Fascinating!  Say more about this...


I'm not saying the book you linked to doesn't exist...I'm saying the book that says 10,000 children froze to death in NYC every year doesn't exist.

Your fairy tale doesn't even pass the sniff test, Princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Do you think that if in ANY year, a third of all deaths in NYC were EVER attributed to children freezing to death, there would be some mention of it in some source searchable on the internet?



It probably is, and when I have the time I'll do a more diligent search.  Can I expect reciprocity?


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that if in ANY year, a third of all deaths in NYC were EVER attributed to children freezing to death, there would be some mention of it in some source searchable on the internet?
> ...


I already have, Pumpkin.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath until you find the dog that ate your homework.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Yeah, that's about what I expected.

If a responsible adult wants more information, I'll look it up for them.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Your capitulation is noted and accepted.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


That's adorable!  Buh-bye!


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Later on, Princess!


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Try to bring some facts with you next time, mmkay?


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Well, I won't bring made-up stories about 10,000 children freezing to death each year in 19th century NYC, if that's what you mean, Sweetheart.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Well, I won't bring made-up stories about 10,000 children freezing to death each year in 19th century NYC, if that's what you mean, Sweetheart.



Do you always proposition other posters on this board?  As I say, if an adult wants to pursue this further, I'll provide more sources.

Now you may have the last word.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I won't bring made-up stories about 10,000 children freezing to death each year in 19th century NYC, if that's what you mean, Sweetheart.
> ...


Well readers, our little Princess has presented her bona fides as an intellectual coward.

When her fairy tale is questioned, she submits sources known only to her, examinable only by her.

And when she's called to the carpet on her obvious perfidy, she resorts to withholding her sources from all except those she seems "adult"--the implication being that those who dare expose her are irresponsible juveniles.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



If that's your pickup line, it could use some improvement.

Do you know any responsible adults on this board?  Ask them to come on over here and they'll get the answers you feel entitled to.

Now, go ahead and get the last word...again.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


CONGRATULATIONS!


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Cartoons now. They're very convincing, though not in the way you intended.

Post more.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 18, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > ... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.
> ...


I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits.  I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower.  The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cartoons now. They're very convincing, though not in the way you intended.
> 
> Post more.


You're not competent to evaluate my intentions.

At least there's no evidence you are.

Or maybe there is...

Maybe that evidence can only be seen by you; in a book, perhaps; that only you have seen; but you don't have it anymore; and no one else has see it either; and no one else will... unless you judge them to be "adult."


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cartoons now. They're very convincing, though not in the way you intended.
> ...



I disagree.  Post another cartoon.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You're not competent to disagree with me.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Don't see that we're heading back to the 19th century, anyway, unless we're planning to do away with all technological advancements since that time.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You might better understand why dblack and I were discussing the 19th century if you read that portion of the thread.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You've done just fine by yourself. Thank you.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Thank you.



You're welcome.  Maybe next time we meet you'll be a little more mature.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


You might also understand the references to 10,000 children freezing to death each year in NYC if it was something that actually happened.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You claimed you had proof it didn't.  I'm still waiting for that.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you.
> ...


Maybe you'll be a little more honest and forthcoming.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


I made no such claim. I wouldn't; I don't have to prove a negative, Princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


You claimed you read all the newspapers extant at the time and didn't find anything.


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You're just making that up too.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


Orly?

Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Yeah. Really.

Is that link meaningful? Like your link to the book that doesn't say 10,000 children froze to death in NYC?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Is that link meaningful?



Considering that you claimed it didn't exist, yes.

Bored now.

I'll give you the last word.  I'm sure it will be something completely original like "I accept your surrender/concession/whatever."


----------



## LOki (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Is that link meaningful?
> ...


I didn't say that link didn't exist, Princess.

And that link is meaningless to any claim I've made.

So in the end, you've just demonstrated to every one who can click your link that you just make shit up and expect everyone to accept your unsubstantiated claims as verifiable fact.


----------



## dblack (Oct 18, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We _can_ dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - _if we decide it's worth doing_.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Not many people make a meaningless laughingstock of themselves quite as quickly as he has.  We should really admire his diligence, at the very least.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 18, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


You say we can dismantle the welfare state.  How?  Half of this country receives benefits from the welfare state.  Do you think beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, SNAP, SSD, SSDI, Veterans Benefits, Student Aid, Obamacare subsidies, Head Start, and 50 other programs are just going to say hey take away my benefits so government can reduce taxes on those that have plenty?  I don't think so.

I'm sure there are some programs that could be reduced and some eliminated but that's not going happen in the current political climate because the control of government swings back and forth between the Right and Left.
.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You two should get together someday.  You have soooo much in common.


----------



## dblack (Oct 18, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what kind of consensus forms among voters. Not everyone is short-sighted and solely self-interested. 

What's your opinion? Do you think it's a good idea to merge economic and state power?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 18, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I've found "get rid of the welfare state" tends to be code for "leave the ones I like and get rid of the rest."  It's a mental exercise without any basis in real life.

Ask any one of them (not dblack, whom I find eminently reasonable), "Okay, say we got rid of Medicare.  Would you be willing/able to pay for your grandmother's medical bills?"

They'll either give you some cockamamie story about how their grandmother doesn't accept Medicare even now because, yanno, reasons, or they'll just flake off.

It's a child's-eye view of the world.  The difference is, a child's mind is flexible, and new information results in new conclusions.  With these people, not so much.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.
> 
> Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.
> 
> ...





LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.
> ...




Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



No, they believe they are owed something from programs that many of them do not fund.  

If you're going to make a list, you really should separate them according to whether or not they're means tested.  Programs like SNAP, MediCAID, Obamacare subsidies and many of the other 50 programs are means tested.  That means if you qualify, you aren't paying the taxes that fund the programs and vice versa.  Why should someone not funding a program benefit from that program?  You raise hell when suggestions to lower the taxes on those who fund them yet don't benefit from them are made.    You seem to forget that those doing the funding aren't doing the getting.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.
> ...


So, again, you're willing to give to the Waltons and their peers who get billion-dollar tax breaks, and to the Waltons' employees because their masters underpay them.

Not everyone is happy with that arrangement.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.  If you're not successful enough to make use of some of the provisions, that's YOUR fucking problem, not mine or anyone else's.  I'm not going to punish other people for not being the same lazy, parasitic piece of shit you are.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.



Excellent!  So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year.  Now we're getting somewhere...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



So, now you're determining what a business should pay someone?  Seems you're willing to do something for which you have no business doing.  I've offered a solution.  If the Walmart workers want more income, do something that warrants more income.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.
> ...



So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes.  Now, we're getting somewhere.  When you support those who provide nothing to society doing their fair share you can talk about those who provide something you couldn't provide yourself and what they get.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It's 1%, not "half the country."  Get back to me when those loopholes are closed.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



About 1/2 don't pay income taxes.

Get back to me when those that don't pay income taxes no longer get things like the earned income credit allowing them to get back more than was taken out in withholdings.  It's one thing to get back everything paid in when filing a return.  It's unacceptable to get back more than you had taken out.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Half of the 1%?  So the other half aren't taking advantage of the loopholes?  I'll need to see some data for that.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Almost half of the whole.

www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-80-income-tax-1428674384

www.money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/index.html


----------



## Flopper (Oct 19, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


By globalism, I mean the barriers between countries, trade, travel restrictions, language, and cultures are slowly disappearing.  Thus, a Chinese worker making two dollars an hour produces goods or services sold in the US displacing the US worker being paid $10/hr.  In Pakistan, workers making $3/hr who speak English are displacing call center workers making $15/hr.  This started years years ago and has increased in 21st century and I suspect it will continue.

The US worker is only able to compete with workers from abroad  because of better training, technology, and a shorter distance between the worker and end user of the product.  The problem is that these gaps are closing.  The foreign worker is becoming better educated relative to the US worker, the same technologies being used in the US are becoming available throughout the world and the cost of transportation is going down. What all this means is the American worker has got to become more productive or his job is going to disappear and add to the number on welfare programs.

I think it's possible, that various social welfare benefits could be reduced, however I don't see anyway to abolish the social welfare system.  There are too many voters that are receiving benefits and too many voters believe the programs are needed.  One out of every 3 families  has at least one family member receiving some form social welfare.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Then all you need to do is close the loopholes and outlaw offshoring and you'll be able to raise far more revenue.  Go for it!


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Presumptuous Straw-man.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



You mean you didn't know about the Waltons?  Not surprising.


----------



## dblack (Oct 19, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I'm more interested in the debate over whether it's a good idea at not. Do appreciate the dangers of granting government more power over our economic fate?


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.

What's not surprising is that you just make shit up.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.



You don't have to present an argument.  You just have to keep doing what you're doing without ever questioning it - chipping in to compensate for the $6 billion a year that they don't pay.  _And_ paying for the SNAP benefits their employees get because the Waltons are the only employer in the area and they pay minimum wage.

Double penetration...into your income.  But you're fine with that.


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.
> ...


Of course not... you'll just make one up for me.

It will be entirely unconnected to any actual point or argument I've presented, it will be baseless in fact, and very comfortable for you to beat upon... like a man made of straw!



Arianrhod said:


> You just have to keep doing what you're doing without ever questioning it - chipping in to compensate for the $6 billion a year that they don't pay.  _And_ paying for the SNAP benefits their employees get because the Waltons are the only employer in the area and they pay minimum wage.
> 
> Double penetration...into your income.  But you're fine with that.


See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.



You're not defending it.  You're doing it.  You are paying more taxes so the Waltons can pay less.  And you don't care.  That's a position.


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.
> ...


See? Baseless in fact. A straw-man.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Only if you lied when you said you knew about the Waltons.


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Also baseless in fact.

You're just a fancy fairy tale spinner, Princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Also baseless in fact.



In Post 363 you said:



LOki said:


> No. I know about the Waltons.


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Also baseless in fact.
> ...


Not in contention, Princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Different Waltons, then:


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Meaningless.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Presumes facts not on evidence.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Here's what your posts in this thread have revealed:



			
				Loki said:
			
		

> …Princess…





			
				Loki said:
			
		

> …Princess…





			
				Loki said:
			
		

> …Princess…





			
				Loki said:
			
		

> …Princess…





			
				Loki said:
			
		

> …Princess…





			
				Loki said:
			
		

> …Princess…





			
				Loki said:
			
		

> …Princess…


You’ve answered the question in the OP, then taken us on an interesting little sidebar that has clearly run its course, and you seem to have an overriding obsession with princesses.  Which one is your favorite?


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Right now, you're my favorite princess, Princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



So all of your posts in this thread have been flirtations?  Then you've just wasted a great deal of time.


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Presumptuous.



Arianrhod said:


> Then you've just wasted a great deal of time.


I would wager you're also a tremendous waste space too.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



So I'm not your favorite?  Make up your mind.



LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Then you've just wasted a great deal of time.
> ...



Yet you said I was your favorite.  Make up your mind.


----------



## LOki (Oct 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You're presumptuous and stupid. There's no contradiction. Just because I'm not flirting with you, it doesn't follow you're not currently my favorite princess, Princess.



Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


There's no contradiction. You can be a waste of both space and time, and still be my favorite... that's the nature of follies, Princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


If that's all you've got to contribute, I think I'll discuss the topic.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 19, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Consensus???
Cut social security, disability, raise medicare premiums, reduce SNAP benefits, cut welfare payments,etc.
I don't think there would be any doubt about the consensus.


----------



## dblack (Oct 20, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Consensus???
> Cut social security, disability, raise medicare premiums, reduce SNAP benefits, cut welfare payments,etc.
> I don't think there would be any doubt about the consensus.



Maybe. Do you think it's a good idea to merge economic and state power?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.
> ...



I've already proposed how to handle the latter.  Stop giving someone who, because of their low level skills, can't support themselves.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



And then what happens?  "I don't care" is about what I'd expect you to say.  Surprise me.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



We'll see just how many of you self proclaimed compassionate bleeding hearts are willing to back up with your own money what you say they deserve. 

What would surprise me is if you actually would.  I know you won't because if you would, you would have already done it.  Government social welfare programs aren't necessary if those who say something should be done would actually do it themselves instead of demanding everyone else do it.

If you know of a situation where someone can't pay their power bill, pay it for them instead of supporting the government take from the rest of us.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



And that's been the agenda behind the 50+ failed attempts to kill the PPACA - you people recreate the conditions of the 19th century and then walk away because it's "not my problem."  The Party of Personal Responsibility strikes again.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Typical blame the other guy mentality of Liberals.  I didn't expect you to prove your claimed compassion.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



In the 19th century, if you didn't work you didn't eat.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Typical blame the other guy mentality.



I'm not blaming "the other guy."  I'm blaming the guy responsible.  Right now that would be you, Marie Antoinette.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 20, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus???
> ...


No, but I don't see what that has to do with providing social services for the poor.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Typical blame the other guy mentality.
> ...



You blamed what happened in the past as to why things are the way they are today.  MOST people are where they are due to choices they made not because someone took advantage of them or caused their situation.  Put the blame where it belongs on those that made bad choices.  

If you're a convicted criminal and now can't find a job, that's no one's fault but your own.  If you quit high school and now can't find a job making more than minimum wage, that's no one's fault but your own.  As long as you dumbasses are willing to give excuses to people for the bad results of choices they made, don't be shocked if they don't improve themselves.  They have no need to do so because you'll find an excuse for them.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 21, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?


Not if they don't  belong here in the first place.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 21, 2015)

Democrats voted yesterday  to keep criminal illegals here so they can shoot and kill us at random.
Senate Dems block anti-sanctuary city bill

This is why we needed bars on our windows in California when I was living there.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Because people choose to be born into poverty, attend bad schools, live in areas where the jobs either don't exist or were sent to China.  Numbers 14:18, huh?



Conservative65 said:


> If you're a convicted criminal and now can't find a job, that's no one's fault but your own.  If you quit high school and now can't find a job making more than minimum wage, that's no one's fault but your own.  As long as you dumbasses are willing to give excuses to people for the bad results of choices they made, don't be shocked if they don't improve themselves.  They have no need to do so because you'll find an excuse for them.



And if you're a child whose parent is serving time, don't be shocked if smug people who have no such experience dismiss you as trash.  They don't have time to examine your situation more closely - they're on their way to church. Luke 18:11.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No people made choices that caused them to be in poverty and now want to blame someone else for the results or expect someone else to pay for it.   Are you saying everyone that quit high school went to a bad school?  

I don't need to examine it more closely.  The parent made the choice to commit the crime that sent them to prison and you expect the rest of us to pay for their choice.  In doing so, it takes away what I'VE earned that goes to my kids.  Why should mine do with less because I am expected to pay more taxes because of what some other parent did?  What you're saying is that when people make bad choices the rest of us should be willing and overjoyed to pay for it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Children choose to be born into poverty?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Many of their parents made choices that produced the result.  Now, bleeding hearts like you think someone such as myself that made better choices which produced much better results should be willing to pay more taxes to offset the bad results of bad choices by those parents.  Every time I pay more in taxes to fund one of your feel good programs, it takes away from MY children.  My children didn't make the choices that produced the results yet you don't have a problem with them having less.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Many of their parents made choices that produced the result.



So we're back to Numbers 14:18, right?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Many of their parents made choices that produced the result.
> ...


What you're back to is incorrectly thinking that those of us totally unassociated with the situation hold more of a responsibility for the results than those close to it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Never said "more."  Just a little Matthew 22:40 and some Galatians 5:14.

You won't even bother referring to them, because you won't like what they tell you.

So you're on record - multiple times - in saying "Not my problem; let someone else take care of it."  But you're still posting in this thread.  Got anything original to say?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



That you said at all is the problem.  

You're on record, multiple times, claiming someone that didn't cause the problem is as responsible as those who did.  Got anything other than bleeding heart rhetoric.

Your problem is that you misinterpret loving your neighbors means anytime your neighbor screws up you should be financially willing to do with less for something that wasn't your fault.  Sometimes loving your neighbor means letting your neighbor learn from his/her mistakes.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Oddly, my bible doesn't continue the passage the way yours does.  It says "Love your neighbor as yourself."  There's no conditional "...unless he screws up, and then you can ignore his kids, too."

Must be the _New Revised Version for American Conservatives_.  Is it available for Kindle?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I didn't continue it.  Seems you think loving your neighbor means paying to offset the results of his bad choices.  Sometimes love is tough love much like Jesus did with the money changers in the Temple.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Looks like someone misunderstood him when he said "Suffer the little children to come unto me."  The revised version (no doubt part of a socialist conspiracy) replaces "suffer" with "let."

You might want to keep current.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...




You might want to use that in context.  That has nothing to do with one person having the responsibility to financially help another.  It deals with the mindset people should have when coming to Christ, one of a carefree, little child.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



No, I understand what it means.  You, on the other hand, want to walk away from "the whole of the law."  Fine.  Now say it a few more times.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



If you did, you would't have misused the passage.  

I love my neighbors but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay the price financially for their screw ups.  That's what you expect.  

I predict you'll keep misusing God's word and claiming you don't.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?









You ignore the fact that if I pay for your medical care I then expose my family to financial ruin because I was forced to pay for you.  

Are you not morally obligated to take care of yourself once you reach adulthood?  or, do you ascribe to the slave/master paradigm where you owe your existence to the almighty government and so long as you have value your government takes care of you but the second you no longer have value they can discard you?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection.  Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> I love my neighbors but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay the price financially for their screw ups.



So you've said.  Now you've said it again.  And you conveniently leave out the part where you think it's cool for your neighbors' children to suffer for their parents' actions.

BTW, do you have any actual statistics on the percentage of people who are poor because of personal "screwups" vs. external factors?  Love to see those.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


It's amusing how many self-styled "conservatives" have no sense of anything other than "Me, me, me...today, now, what I want."  Until they're trying to prove that "Obozocare is full of fail...or will be in 2016 or 2020 or..."

They're so funny...


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...









Poverty and bad laws.  We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty".  How has that worked out for us?  What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...







What's equally funny is the number of progressives who seem to still be infants and incapable of fending for themselves.  Tell me.  When do you people grow up and become adults?

Ever?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Evidence, please?  Or is this just Trolling by Staff?


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...







Evidence of what?  The fact that all of you behave like little birds in the nest squawking "me, me, me, me"


----------



## LOki (Oct 21, 2015)

You know,...

Just because folks are against the government providing goods and services to those in need, it simply does not follow that those same folks are against providing goods and services to those in need.

Just saying.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're confusing me with Conservative65.  I'm not the one dismissing anyone else's needs but my own.

Or is this the part where you misuse the word "progressive" to fit Conservative65's definition of "leeches"?  Because you'd be mistaken there, too.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

LOki said:


> You know,...
> 
> Just because folks are against the government providing goods and services to those in need, it simply does not follow that those same folks are against providing goods and services to those in need.
> 
> Just saying.



Some of you do.  Some of you don't.  Just as those of us who understand the purpose of safety nets do as well.

Then there's the concept of the so-called "entitlements."  Why shouldn't people who have contributed to FICA all their working lives, for example, get Social Security benefits when they retire?


----------



## LOki (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > You know,...
> ...


This is circular reasoning. OF COURSE they should benefit from the program(s) they were forced to contribute to. We should demand this.

But this coerced socially engineered dependency is intellectually and morally repugnant. 

We should also demand that such forced servitude be ended. I don't know what the mechanics of that look like, but I think forcing one set of folks to subsidized the lives of other folks is inherently wrong.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

LOki said:


> OF COURSE they should benefit from the program(s) they were forced to contribute to. We should demand this.



Fair enough.  Because Grandma might move in with you if she didn't get that check every month.  So, some "entitlements" Good, others Bad.



LOki said:


> But this coerced socially engineered dependency is intellectually and morally repugnant.



That's not what "social engineering" means. 



LOki said:


> We should also demand that such forced servitude be ended. I don't know what the mechanics of that look like, but I think forcing one set of folks to subsidized the lives of other folks is inherently wrong.



"Servitude"?  No.  _Servitude_ is something like being drafted into the military when you're 18, but you can't vote until you're 21.

Paying taxes is equivalent to a club membership.  You're a member of Club America?  You pay dues.  If you consider taxation = servitude, maybe you'd be happier somewhere where you wouldn't be subjected to such "servitude."


----------



## Flopper (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that.  The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face.  The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line.  However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor.  Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/ac...Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf


----------



## LOki (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > OF COURSE they should benefit from the program(s) they were forced to contribute to. We should demand this.
> ...


There's certainly something to be said for the benefits of multi-generation households.



Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > But this coerced socially engineered dependency is intellectually and morally repugnant.
> ...


Well.... you're wrong.



Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > We should also demand that such forced servitude be ended. I don't know what the mechanics of that look like, but I think forcing one set of folks to subsidized the lives of other folks is inherently wrong.
> ...


That is certainly servitude.

So is involuntarily covering another's medical bills, grocery bills, housing bills, retirement, etc...

This is different than service. You're as much a servant when paying for all that, as you would be actually doing it... and just to be clear, Princess... I'm not against being of voluntary service to other people. (I'm certain you've already forgotten.)

I object to servitude.



Arianrhod said:


> Paying taxes is equivalent to a club membership.  You're a member of Club America?  You pay dues.



"Dues" is paying your bills, not someone else's.



Arianrhod said:


> If you consider taxation = servitude, maybe you'd be happier somewhere where you wouldn't be subjected to such "servitude."


I didn't equate taxes to servitude, but I understand where you're coming from, and you make an excellent point.

Why don't you address the point _I_ actually made?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



If they're voluntary.  If they're forced because of poverty, not so much.



LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Nope.  It means what LBJ called "winning hearts and minds."



LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



That's what you'd be doing if Grandma came to live with you.  You're not doing that now.  Even if you were, comparing it to, say, a tour in Nam, is indicative of just how childish the argument really is.  Maybe we should bring back the draft so you can have a first-hand experience of "servitude."



LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Paying taxes is equivalent to a club membership.  You're a member of Club America?  You pay dues.
> ...



Did you object to your taxes going for the invasion of Iraq?  Or does your objection hinge on who's in the Oval Office?



LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > If you consider taxation = servitude, maybe you'd be happier somewhere where you wouldn't be subjected to such "servitude."
> ...



I have addressed your posts in detail.  What do you feel I've neglected?


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...








I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there.  However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money.  That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia.  How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty?  Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest.  If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die.  The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children.  They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too.  Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


We've spent $22 trillion and the poverty level today is the same as it was just before the war on poverty began.

The poverty rate couldn't have been 26% in 1967 since the highest poverty rate on record was just over 22% in 1959.

www.cnbc.com/id/48281252/

Here's a chart from the Census Bureau showing poverty by the percentages and numbers.  I'm not seeing that 26% you claim


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



While the Bible teaches that we should help our fellow man, nowhere does it say that the government is the one to make the determination who is on that list.  Jesus' teachings, in Matthew 25:35, says "for I was hungry and YOU gave me something to eat, I was thirty and YOU gave me something to drink,  . . . ".  It doesn't say and the government forced someone they thought had too much  to do it.  

It works for me.  One of concerns I have with those who stay in poverty is they get to vote for tose that allow them to continue to be taken care of.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Children can choose  to work their way out of poverty too..


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



In China and India, true.  Nice that you want the U.S. to devolve to that level.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Making piss-poor excuses  isn't  a solution. ...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I dismiss it because it's not your place to make the determination who I should consider needy.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



That you think it's someone else's place to do for another person's kids because they won't proves we're already sinking.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Making piss-poor excuses  isn't  a solution. ...



Then maybe you should stop.



Conservative65 said:


> I dismiss it because it's not your place to make the determination who I should consider needy.



Didn't realize you worked for Social Services.  Now that would be ironic...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Making piss-poor excuses  isn't  a solution. ...
> ...



I don't.   Since I'm one of those funding what you think I should be forced to fund, by supporting that forced taxation, you're telling me that you can determine who I should give a shit about.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Let me ask you: Did you agree to fund the Iraq War?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Is funding war and the military a delegated power in the Constitution?  The answer is yes.  Does the word food stamps, government subsidized healthcare, etc. exist in the Constitution?  The answer is no.  I go by what the Constitution says.  You go by what you want it to say.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



So you're happy to donate to invading other sovereign nations.  Got it.


----------



## LOki (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 Charmingly anthropomorphic--but ultimately meaningless.



Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 LOLsome!



Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 Wrong for OBVIOUS reasons.




Arianrhod said:


> You're not doing that now.  Even if you were, comparing it to, say, a tour in Nam, is indicative of just how childish the argument really is.


 I made no comparison, Princess.



Arianrhod said:


> Maybe we should bring back the draft so you can have a first-hand experience of "servitude."


 Perhaps you're not the one to accuse others of being " childish".



Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 Absolutely.



Arianrhod said:


> Or does your objection hinge on who's in the Oval Office?


 You need to disabuse yourself of your childishly presumptive paradigm, Princess.



Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


No. You've addressed the strawman caricatures you've created.

Per your predictable, and retarded idiom.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I'm happy to abide by the Constitution.  You aren't.

By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Happy to lend your support to killing children in other sovereign nations, but not to feeding children in your own.  Jesus might not approve, but Yahweh would give you a fist-bump.



Conservative65 said:


> You aren't.



My interpretation differs from yours.



Conservative65 said:


> By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.



I don't recall disputing that.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Mine isn't an interpretation. It goes based on what's WRITTEN not how I want it to read.    That you admit it's an interpretation means you have to put your personal bias into it.  I go only by what it says and that doesn't require an interpretation.  It only requires the ability to read what it says.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Sucks for you that we live under a tricameral system and not a dictatorship, huh?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Sucks that you have to rely on what you want something to say while ignoring what something actually says.  

I can show you where it SAYS military and funding of it.  Can you show me the word food stamps and healthcare in that same document?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



I'm aware of the wording of the Constitution.

Which, of course, has never been amended, right?

And which, courtesy of a tricameral system, is frequently interpreted.

So what's your objection - to the amendments (except the Sacred Second, of course) or to the existence of SCOTUS (except when its rulings match your desires)?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics,  it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor.  People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice.  Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment.  For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment.  TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work.  Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid.  Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income.  Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.


----------



## dblack (Oct 21, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



It has everything to do with it. I hope you can appreciate that, for me at least, this has nothing to with compassion for the poor, and everything to do with dangerously powerful government.

Look back at the justifications you provided for propping up American workers. It's approximately the same arguments offered for giving tax breaks to American corporations. We're inviting government to treat workers and companies as resources to be fostered (and controlled) in the name of international competition.

The reason this kind of government (corporatism) is so dangerous is that it discards the equal protection of individual rights in favor of government that balances interest group privileges. It sets government up as the coach of society, rather than the referee.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...









Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice.  They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment.  They COULD work, they choose not to.  A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc.  And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice.  They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment.  They COULD work, they choose not to.  A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc.  And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.



Here we go again...


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice.  They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment.  They COULD work, they choose not to.  A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc.  And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.
> ...








Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you.  You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...







And yet it is factual, unlike the tired old bullshit you trot out on a daily basis.  Tell me oh dimwitted one, has there ever been a society where there was no poverty?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Then present some factual data, not "a friend of mine."

An example of factual data:


----------



## Flopper (Oct 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


See page page 5 of the report for an explanation of the OPM/SPM poverty rates.
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf


----------



## Flopper (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yes, there are people that prefer poverty to work, but like the welfare queens they are a relatively small percentage of those receiving government assistance.  As I said, the vast number of people receiving assistance from the government are either elderly, disabled or a member of a working household.

You use the term "can work".  Anyone can work given the right situation; that is if the person's age, disability, hours not doing childcare, job qualifications, and a means to get to the job, match that of an available job.  In spite of problems, most of them do work.  They work at part time and/or temporary jobs.  The common situation is they have a temporary job which last a few months.  Then they're out of work for several months.  They never make enough to get off public assistance.  Most of these people are hired only because they will work for low pay in jobs no else wants.

I've worked or volunteered at both a job center and a homeless center.  My experience has been that most of these people are willing to work and want to work.  The problem is no one wants to hire them because they are either incapable of doing the work or they aren't reliable. Drugs, alcohol, physical and mental disabilities, institutionalization, age, and illnesses make them undesirable for most jobs they might qualify which aren't many.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.
> ...



No, fucknut.  You might as well give up on your attempts to make what I say into what you want to hear.  It's never worked for anyone else on this board, and frankly, you have about half the IQ points of the next dumbest leftist around here.

Listen up, because this will be the last time I say it:  there is nothing in the tax code that specifies "only the Waltons", or "only the Kochs", or "only the [random rich person Arian hates because he's such a fucking loser]".  They have the same tax code you do.  The fact that you're a minimum-wage pisswad whose only income likely comes from other people's pity and therefore has no reason to use certain aspects of the tax code doesn't mean they wouldn't apply to you just as much as anyone else should a miracle happen and you win the Powerball lottery or something.

So take your liver-eating envy of anyone who isn't a room temperature mouthbreather like you, and peddle it on down the fucking road.  There is nothing "clever" you are going to say that is ever going to make me agree that it's a spiffy idea to punish people for not being shitbricks like you.  All your attempts at cleverness accomplish is to convince me that you are, indeed, a shitbrick.  Mission accomplished, so you can stop.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No, fuckstain.  46% of the country - the poor side of the spectrum - don't pay federal taxes.  That 1% you're so "brilliantly" convinced don't pay taxes?  They're the ones paying your way in life.

Way to show us your economic acumen, Jethro.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.
> ...



So let me get this straight.  You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?

You need to find a mental institution and check your sorry, why-are-you-even-alive ass in.  Stat.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...











You mean like this silly boy?


*Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes*
Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So let me get this straight.  You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?



I didn't say they weren't paying any taxes; I said they got a tax break of $6 billion.  Do you understand the difference?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



On declared income.  Have you ever heard of the Cayman Islands?

Also, how you doing with all the info Flopper gave you?


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...








Yes, declared income.  The bottom 50 percent pay 3%.  Of THEIR declared income.  Go away.  You're nothing but a one trick pony.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Yes, declared income.  The bottom 50 percent pay 3%.  Of THEIR declared income.



So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts.  Not surprising.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, declared income.  The bottom 50 percent pay 3%.  Of THEIR declared income.
> ...









Nope, I know they don't.  My offshore account is in the Isle of Man.  How about yours?   I am curious though.   If you could have your ultimate wish as regards the economy, what would it be?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I don't read propaganda.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life.  In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference.  It's a result of a choice.  
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others.  That's incorrect.  I went to school with rich and not so rich.  Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc.  How is that not the same opportunity?  

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



It's been amended but there are still no words such as food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc.  

My objection is that so many of your kind, meaning bleeding hearts, constantly see things in the Constitution that simply aren't there and complain about those that are.  Just yesterday, I was discussing with one of you bleeding hearts this very concept.  That person said that the government has passed laws that say X% goes to such programs and I should simply pay those taxes and stop complaining.  I asked that person if they thought too much was spent on the military.  Of course, the answer was yes and a very resounding yes at that.  My reply was that the government has passed laws that say X% goes to funding the military and he should stop complaining.  When I brought up that at least funding for the military was a specifically delegated power to Congress and what he supported had no such delegation, he reverted to the typical emotional ranting of a bleeding heart using the go to phrases about living in a society and helping the unfortunate.  When I told him that he was more than welcome to do with his own money what he thought should be done, I could have sworn I was talking to you.  Like most of you, you say something should be done then expect everyone to say yes and if they don't, you go about having it forced from us.

Had a similar conversation with another one of you last night.  I offered him the challenge of doing the same.  His response, which I haven't heard in a while, fell under the "IF I could I would but I don't have the money".


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I saw this just as I was logging out last night, but I've been thinking about it ever since.  I'm not an economist, so I don't know the names of the various disciplines or who espouses what, so I can't approach it from that angle, just from practicality.  As simply as possible, I'd want an economy that works for people, not the other way around.

Which economists espoused maintaining infrastructure?  The U.S. ranks second in natural resources globally.  Why are our roads and dams and bridges crumbling?  People pay state and sales taxes.  States get federal funding.  Where does that money go?  Into state legislators' pockets?  Into their special pork barrel projects?  You tell me.

It's my understanding that there are something like eight million vacant houses nationwide, and about 3.5 million homeless.  That looks like a simple equation, until the emotionalism sets in.  "Oh, you want to give homeless people free stuff?  Fuck that!"  Conversation ends.

I understand it costs about $22,000 a year to keep someone in one of our increasingly privately-run prisons, regardless of whether he's in there for murdering his wife or for a nonviolent crime.  That makes more sense to some people than tuition-free state universities.

I was reading something this morning about a city program in Albuquerque that hires homeless people to clean up their own neighborhood.  They work for 5.5 hours at $9 an hour, and when they're done they're driven to a health center for a meal and, if they want it, a medical checkup (yeah, more "free stuff" and "he'll only use that money to buy booze and drugs").  I don't know about you, but I like to see clean streets and fewer people sleeping on the sidewalks.

Give me a practical economy.  For some reason we can't seem to do that in this country.  There are amazing things happening in so-called "Third World" countries where I can show you that a lot can be accomplished with a little, but in this country we get stuck.  Figure that out and we can accomplish other things.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 22, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same.  Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor.  If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good.  As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor.  60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed.  Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working.  Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families.  The problem is not the people are not working.  The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...











Albuquerque's idea sounds like a good one.  Please note, I am very liberal.  I WANT people to be able to take care of themselves.  What I don't want is for people to be dependent on others.  The way the current welfare system works benefits the welfare workers but not the recipients.  That's the nature of the beast.  

If you give something to people they eventually expect it.  Then they demand it, but worse of all they don't value it.  Nor do they appreciate the sacrifice that is made by other families so that they can get what they want.  It is a fact that welfare families are paid very well to stay on welfare, thus they have no incentive to get off of it.

College isn't for everyone.  My dad could care less about college, and ultimately there is no such thing as free education, somewhere along the line somebody has to pay for it.  I would like to see those who need help, and will actually succeed at college to be able to go there.  I don't know how that can be worked out, but it should be.

What I find astonishing is the low level of education that is now considered acceptable in the high schools today.  My wife was talking with an adjunct faculty at Western Nevada College who is trying to get a intro to science class added to the curriculum of the college because a student can graduate with honors from a high school and have been required to have only a single biology class to do so.  They have no clue of chemistry, or physics.  I find that astonishing, but given how little scientific understanding there is on this Forum I am frankly not surprised.

I think the best possible thing to reduce crime in general would be to decriminalize drugs and their use.  80% of all violent crime would go away if that were done.  If a person wants to get stoned in the privacy of their own home that is their right.  The laws we have against them are stupid and immoral.

I can go on and on but the gist of the matter is nothing is free, welfare should not be a lifetime goal, and no matter how hard you try you will never end poverty.  It is simply impossible.  The goal is to give every child an opportunity to live a better life than their parents lived.  After that the choices they make are theirs and they have to live with them.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The result is the same.  It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.  

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth.  If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying.  Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough.  In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes.   To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Couldn't have said it better - thank you!


----------



## Flopper (Oct 22, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I actually do agree with on taxes.  The middle class is not paying enough taxes.  However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr,  it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family.   If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right.  However, that presents two problems.  Higher education is not cheap.  In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers.  Far too  many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.  

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers.  That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...








Community colleges are a joke to be frank.  Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do.  Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids.  It truly is.


----------



## dblack (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Community colleges are a joke to be frank.  Well, I'm being harsh there....



Indeed you are. Depends entirely on the college.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Unfortunately, I had a job a few years ago, teaching computer  and networking classes in the local community college.  A couple of months ago I saw one my old students who graduated.  She was working at Red Robin as a waitress, same job she had when she was in school.  I ask her how she's doing.  She said, "OK, just trying to pay off a $4,000 education loan and still trying to get my first job in the field".

If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand  or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.


----------



## dblack (Oct 22, 2015)

Flopper said:


> If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand  or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.



I think this is definitely a 'your-mileage-may-vary' situation. Both my sons started out via the community college route. Both transferred to top level universities. One is an engineer for Google in SF and the other is getting his PhD in philosophy at a tenured-track program.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand  or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.
> ...







Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.  That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major?  Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?


----------



## dblack (Oct 22, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.


Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.



> That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major?  Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?



Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



There is a well-known technical college where I live.  It offers two year degree programs, certificate programs in many construction areas, non-certificate programs where people who want to improve on various skills can take courses as they desire, and college transfer credit classes in math, english, etc. that most 4 year schools will accept. 

Like you said, and it's predominant in the degree programs, the students take remedial classes for no credit, things they should have learned in high school, before they can get into the course work toward the degree.  In my opinion, and it doesn't matter if it's a 4 year school, technical college, or community college, if you have to take remedial classes, you don't belong in college.  College is supposed to be for those prepared to go not someone that needs to take classes and learn things they should have learned before being allowed to graduate high school.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.
> ...








I have a PhD in geology so understand tenure.  Philosophy is an unusual major these days.


----------



## dblack (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> I have a PhD in geology so understand tenure.  Philosophy is an unusual major these days.



Indeed. And very competitive. He didn't have the creds to get into a top-ten program, but he did land top twenty, and is very focused on cognitive-science as a complementary specialty. It's not a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. He has more practical sense about him than I ever did.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 22, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I'm not talking about that family making $30,000, I'm talking about that family making almost double that still not paying taxes.  The income I gave was based purely on that family taking the standard deduction, 5 exemptions, and the child tax credit x 3.  I followed the 1040 form starting with Line 7 income of $58,249.  Line 6d is 5 for the number of exemptions.  Reduce that $58,249 by the standard deduction of $12,400 and now the income subject to being taxes is $45,849.  Each exemption from line 6d is worth $3,950 or a total of $19,750.  Now that $45,849 becomes $26,099 subject to tax.  Taxes, using the tax table, is figured on that amount and it's $2,996.  Each child gets a tax credit of $1000 for a total of $3000.  Credits are an actual dollar amount deduction from the tax liability.  When the $3000 is subtracted from the $2996, it's $0 tax liability since the tax form states if subtracting is less than zero you put $0.  That the family doesn't pay income taxes on that $58,249 involves only the makeup of the family.  If they, for some reason, have other deduction or credits, the amount before they pay income taxes is even higher.  If their gross income was $1 more, it puts them in the next line up making their income taxes $4.  That $4 tax on a gross income means they pay 6/100,000th of a percent in income taxes.

I didn't say that person making $8/hour for $8/hour skills was enough.  I said that if the person only offers $8/hour skills, the problem is with the person offering not the person paying a skill equivalent wage.  If that $8/hour isn't enough, that doesn't mean, by default, the payer should pay more because the person offers sucky skills.  

There are many decent paying jobs paying more than $8/hour where only a high school diploma is required.   I served as an elected  commissioner for a local public service entity several years ago.  We hired people green in training and trained them.  It was non-union and we started at somewhere around $17/hour.  The only education required was a high school diploma.  At the local technical college, many degree programs are 60 - 66 semester hours.  The state's lottery funds a large portion of technical college tuition.  A person getting an AA degree can get the entire degree using lottery funds to offset tuition for less than $7500 total investment to them.  I just looked on their website and a 16 hour semester or 1/4 the total hour requirement costs $1816 per semester with lottery money.  All one has to do to qualify for lottery money is live in the state and take a minimum of 6 hours per semester.  If the person lives in the county, it's less per semester because local property taxes go to the school.  I pay not much less than their total cost per year for my daughter to attend a private university and she receive over $28,000/year  in scholarships.  

If the rest of us are expected to invest in low skilled workers, shouldn't they be willing to invest some in themselves?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Anyone who majors in philosophy, anthropology, history, sociology, and a number of liberal art disciplines better not be depending on these degrees to get them a job.   Over the long term they may well serve you well but they aren't going get you a job at graduation.  

Only 3% of our graduates have liberal arts degrees, yet 20% of our presidents are liberal arts graduates.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 22, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I don't think that most of the people who went from high school to work in low paid jobs have what to takes to make a success of a 4 year college. program. There are of course exceptions.  I've seen people that fight their way through community college and move on to a 4 year school only to find that they can't make it through the harder curriculum and end up with a degree in general studies.  I think a better path for people like this is to go for a certificate program  or a para-professional degree at community college or university.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...





dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.
> ...


Most philosophy major get advanced degrees in other disciplines. Philosophy is a great field of study because it teaches you think.  However, it's not a particular easy major and there is virtually no one looking to hire philosophy majors. There are a number fields that philosophy majors do well in, one being law because law requires exactly the skills that philosophy teaches, clear logical thinking.  Philosophy majors have the highest rate of acceptance in law schools of all discipline.


----------



## Slyhunter (Oct 22, 2015)

My sister needs 600,000 for the cure for Hepatitis C. Her son turned 18 and she no longer qualifies for Medicaid. Should I start a go-fund-me account so you can pay for it?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

Slyhunter said:


> My sister needs 600,000 for the cure for Hepatitis C. Her son turned 18 and she no longer qualifies for Medicaid. Should I start a go-fund-me account so you can pay for it?



The cost is actually around 100K:

How to Pay for Costly Hepatitis C Drugs

Not sure what your nephew's age has to do with your sister's Medicaid eligibiity (I have a hunch you don't either), but there's information at the link about how to pay for the full course of treatment.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



When it comes to skills and "what it takes", MOST people are where they are due to themselves.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



There's a difference between someone being a philosophy major planning to go to law school and being a philosophy major with no further plans for school.  The former uses it as a stepping stone as part of their overall goal.  The latter gets something they can't use then wonders why no one will hire them.  While philosophy majors may be able to think, employers hire people to do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me get this straight.  You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?
> ...



And they STILL paid for most of the taxes, while 46% of the population didn't pay jack shit.  Do YOU understand?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Frankly, if my kid said his goal in college was to become a lawyer, I'd smack him in the head.  The job market is flooded with lawyers fresh out of school who can't find jobs.  Unless that's really his life's dream from kindergarten, I'd be telling him to go into a field that actually gives him a chance of being employed afterward.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You can dither on about all the imagined ways that rich people aren't paying taxes until your fingers fall off.  No one cares.  The fact remains that, tax breaks notwithstanding, the rich are still ponying up the money that the government spends, and 46% of the population are getting a tax break called "not paying anything at all".

I'd say the total savings from THAT tax break far outweigh the 6 billion that you keep parroting on about.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, declared income.  The bottom 50 percent pay 3%.  Of THEIR declared income.
> ...



So either you believe that the rich are paying the majority of the taxes while somehow not paying any taxes at all or you're an idiot.

No, wait, it's both.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Well, I would definitely have issues with the college at that point.  Where I live, the community college is a very effective way to acquire a two-year degree and/or employment certification for a wide variety of fields, and then get a job afterward.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...









There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools.  I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential.  But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves.  they are screwing the children of this country over.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Do you have access to the Waltons' financial records?  Impressive.

What I understand is that you'll be joining Conservative65 in going door-to-door in working class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy banks so the 46% will pay "their fair share."

I can't seem to convince you people that that's far too labor intensive to yield the results you desire, but you won't listen.  Better invest in a good pair of walking shoes.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Great post - wish I could have rated this more than once!


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 According to the WSJ the top 20% of earners pay 84% of taxes. CNBC says that the "top 1% pay nearly half of fedral income taxes". According to taxfoundation.com, "The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90". The Heritage foundation had this to say, "*Top* 10 Percent of *Earners Paid* 68 Percent of *Federal Income Taxes* ".

Who's the idiot now....


----------



## Flopper (Oct 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not.  The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If they can't do the level of work that they should do in high school, they don't belong in college.  

The problem with what you say is that many on the left want the rest of us to invest in something you say involves screw ups.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Then you'll be happy to know that the Sanders plan includes an academic requirement.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Unless, you really want to see the welfare state grow, then you should be in favor of providing education for those with lower abilities and aspirations that are in low skilled jobs.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I've come to the conclusion that they have a lowered ability to understand that education is an _investment_.  As one generation of professionals ages out and retires, who's going to replace them?  They don't think of things like that.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> I've come to the conclusion that they have a lowered ability to understand that education is an _investment_.  As one generation of professionals ages out and retires, who's going to replace them?  They don't think of things like that.



Maybe they see it as a _private_ investment, and not something government should be in charge of.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I think most young people in community college certificate and para-professional programs see their education as a stepping stone to making more money.  Many of these students are paying little or nothing.  Student's pursuing a 4 year degree pay more money out of pocket and through college loans and I think they do look upon their education as an investment.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...







We are in agreement here.  In fact there is a program at our local CC that allows high schooler's, while still in high school, to attend college classes.  The high achievers are normally not a problem.  It is the middle of the road kids that need help.  Currently the CC system does very little other than glad handing to help them.  If they are a poor student the CC system bends over backwards to help them when to be honest they shouldn't even be there.

My wife teaches occasionally at the CC and MOST of the students are poor.  To the point where getting them to do a single assignment can be difficult.  They are paid to attend but they truly don't care about succeeding.  Those kids should be elsewhere instead of wasting valuable resources.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > I've come to the conclusion that they have a lowered ability to understand that education is an _investment_.  As one generation of professionals ages out and retires, who's going to replace them?  They don't think of things like that.
> ...



State governments' involvement in state universities would be no greater than it is currently.  I suppose if people wanted to personally screen working-class kids for their potential as future doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants, etc. and then sink their own money into paying the best candidates' tuition, they could do that but, like knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods demanding "pay your fair share!!!!" it would be both labor intensive and not cost saving.

Although maybe these "volunteers" could do both simultaneously. "Hi, I'm here to confiscate the change in your sofa cushions and the dollar bills in the cookie jar...unless your kid wants to go to dental school.  Because my dentist will be retiring in a few years and..."

Sounds like a plan.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Two reasons why the "not with my tax dollars!!!11!" group is resistant to tuition-free education at state universities (which, BTW, is the way it used to be in the 1950s they ordinarily tout so highly).  Two-year certificate kids might compete with their own kids for jobs, and four-year kids getting "free stuff" is anathema.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Huh?


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Two reasons why the "not with my tax dollars!!!11!" group is resistant to tuition-free education at state universities (which, BTW, is the way it used to be in the 1950s they ordinarily tout so highly). Two-year certificate kids might compete with their own kids for jobs, and four-year kids getting "free stuff" is anathema.


Wrong again. If you want to put your money into someone else's education, go head. I would rather have the CHOICE as to what CHARITIES I donate to, if I donate at all. It is not the role of government, nor should it be, to re-distribute wealth. I come from the group of people that sent their kids to two year college, because* that's what they could afford. *I hope to have the resourses to send my son to any college he chooses, and I don't want a hand-out to do it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I'm not sure why we're discussing this in the healthcare forum when there's already a thread about "free stuff" vis-a-vis state college tuition in another forum, but why not?

I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds.

Period.

I guarantee you the people screaming hysterically in that other thread don't even know what a hedge fund is, but they're outraged anyway.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

oldsoul said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Two reasons why the "not with my tax dollars!!!11!" group is resistant to tuition-free education at state universities (which, BTW, is the way it used to be in the 1950s they ordinarily tout so highly). Two-year certificate kids might compete with their own kids for jobs, and four-year kids getting "free stuff" is anathema.
> ...



And if you don't have the resources?  "Sorry, kid.  Sucks to be you"?

You do realize you will have a choice to send your son to a private college regardless of whether state universities return to their original tuition-free status, right?


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 You're missing the point.
If Socialism was so great then how is it that EVERY time it's tried it collapes upon itself? Maybe it's because all the other attempts where by people who just weren't as smart as Sanders?

If I don't have the resourses then I will expect him to pay some too. WOW, everything really is black and white with libs, isn't it? All or nothing, no middle ground, no comprimise, no innovation...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

oldsoul said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...



You should really start a thread to promote your hypothesis in the appropriate forum, because it will go largely unnoticed here.

Now, I'm willing to continue discussing education in the healthcare forum, but only if you can stay on topic.

Were you aware that (A) state universities used to be tuition-free and (B) regardless of who's elected, you would still have the choice of sending your son to a private college...if, as you say, you had the resources?  If you didn't, you might appreciate a tuition-free state university as an alternative.  I'm fairly confident your son would appreciate the opportunity for higher education vs "Tough luck, kid."  JMO.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



It's essentially all the same argument. We don't think government should be used as a general purpose tool to supply society with benefits. That's really the core debate here.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I think that's at least partly due to a misinterpretation of that phrase in the Preamble about "promote the general welfare."  Too many people conflate it with "welfare as in 'welfare queen'" and ignore the "general" part.

A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace.  That's known as "enlightened self-interest," a phrase that the same people who confuse "welfare" with "welfare queen" also lop off the "enlightened" part and embrace "self-interest" to mean "Me, ME, MEEEEE!  Right now...fuck the future.  MEEEEEEE!"


----------



## Flopper (Oct 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That's one of the things I hate about teaching in community college is there are always those that are going to fail because they don't apply themselves or just don't care.  However, most of the classes I have taught, they're in the minority.

I think people are far too critical of the success rate of programs that address the needs of the poor.  To a social scientist, programs with a success rate of 40% are often considered successful.  Few people seem to realize just how hard it is too work with people that lived most of their lives in poverty, have about zero self esteem, and have failed so many times that they have just given up.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> ... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...



The question is whether it's the job of government to make us healthier or better educated, or better at competing in the market place. I adamantly don't want government involved in those kinds of projects. I want a government that protects our freedom to pursue the levels of health, education and competitiveness that we want.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > ... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...
> ...


It has historically been the government's job to invade other sovereign nations on false pretexts, deregulate the banks (yes, I know it happened on Bill Clinton's watch...just to preempt that little distraction) so that they created the recession of '08, and allow corporations to send American manufacturing jobs overseas. 

Arguably "invading Iraq under the pretext that it was a threat to the U.S." falls under Article 1, Section 8, but where are the latter two mentioned?

Again, I'd argue that "promote the general welfare" covers such things as stopping the polio epidemic in the 1950s, for example.

The best way to weaken a nation and hasten its demise is through illness and ignorance.  The very fact that some people see the word "socialist" and don't even understand that it has more than one meaning is indicative of the latter and, quite possibly, an aspect of the former.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...








Here's where I disagree with you.  The success rate is extremely important.  Merely throwing money at a program with no care as to how effective it is is what leads to multiple programs doing the same thing equally ineffectively.  Money needs to be spent far more wisely than it currently is.  That is a fact.  Re-inventing the wheel over and over helps no one, and in fact harms everyone.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my point.



> Again, I'd argue that "promote the general welfare" covers such things as stopping the polio epidemic in the 1950s, for example.



Do you think that government should be used to provide us with things like education and healthcare, or the rest of life's necessities? I don't. Here's why:

The principle means of government is coercion. We use government to force people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do. That's what makes it different than all other social institutions. 

I can't, in good conscience, justify using government force to provide me with things I want or need unless I'd be willing to use force to get them myself. I _would_, for example, be willing to use violent force to protect myself, or someone else, who was being attacked by a mugger. But I wouldn't be willing to use violence to get an education. Or healthcare. It would be wrong for me to that as an individual, and it's just as wrong for government to do it on my behalf.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I was asking whether manipulating the law to benefit bankers and corporations instead of working Americans was covered in the Constitution.  Yes, it's a rhetorical question, but the strict constructionists love to haul out the Constitution whether it's appropriate to the conversation or not.



dblack said:


> > Again, I'd argue that "promote the general welfare" covers such things as stopping the polio epidemic in the 1950s, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Um, yeah, like those free polio vaccinations in the 1950s, without which many people alive today would never exist because their parents died or suffered irreparable disability from polio.

"People being forced into things"?  How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy?  How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon?  How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas?  That's coercion.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> "People being forced into things"?  How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy?  How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon?  How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas?  That's coercion.



Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > "People being forced into things"?  How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy?  How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon?  How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas?  That's coercion.
> ...



It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument.  Those people will feel bullied no matter what.  You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth.  Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time. 

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality.  YMMV.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



1)  What you'll need to show me is where the federal government offset that tuition free education or was it done at the state level only.  Much like Romneycare was in Massachusetts, while I don't agree with the government sticking it's nose in healthcare, if Massachusetts chose to do that in Massachusetts, the Constitution gave them the authority they needed under the 10th Amendment.  That it only applied within Massachusetts boundaries, again while not my cup of tea, was their prerogative.

2)  That someone expects STATE college tuition to be funded by FEDERAL tax dollars, in part of whole, makes them exactly what you labeled them.  If a particular STATE wants to do it with funds solely from their STATE, see #1 above.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?



Okay, now you've lost me.  The PPACA doesn't coerce doctors into doing anything.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified".  Forcing one group to provide anything to another group is never justified.  When people who argue for funding healthcare and education with tax dollars do so, their argument centers around the mindset of it's the right thing to do.  That's a moral argument.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified".



Nope.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?
> ...



EMTALA does. PPACA coerces all citizens into buying insurance.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The entire argument used by the left, despite what they say, is a moral argument.  When they say providing healthcare and education, as just two examples, is the right thing to do, that's a moral argument.  Determining right or wrong is what morality is all about.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified".
> ...



Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so.  Remember that.  

When the argument is based on whether or not something is the right thing to do, that's a moral argument because morality is based on what's right or wrong.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



And now he not only talks around me, he attributes things I didn't say.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Why should welfare grow when those getting it are the cause of them being eligible for it?  

Even you said there are those for which high education doesn't work based on their abilities to learn at higher levels.  Now, you're saying we should provide funding to those you say can't attain higher level skills.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Add "moral" to the ever-growing list of words whose meaning eludes you...

Your response will be a variation on "BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!!!!11!"


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I talk down AT you.  You said providing healthcare and education isn't a moral issue.  It's not a practical issue unless you can GUARANTEE what you call an investment will provide your stated return.   Do you have that guarantee?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Morality involves making the distinction between what's right/wrong or good/bad.  What I do know is that it's not your place to determine what's right/wrong or good/bad when it comes to anyone else's money.  In other words, don't push your morals on me.  You're trying to say that taxpayers providing healthcare and education to someone that can't afford it is right/good.  You have that right.  What you don't have the right to do is determine whether or not I believe the same way.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I don't think it's moral to kill the life of an unborn child.  Is it OK for me to make that decision for someone else?  I don't think two fags should get married.  Is it OK for me to make that decision?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Legislating morality means things like "We should pass laws making this a Christian nation" and "We should pass laws requiring prayer in [public] schools" and "We think sodomy is disgusting, so we need to outlaw SSM."

Practicality is a whole 'nother category.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



We have a winnah!

Doesn't your church teach you that?  If you feel you need the government to enforce it, that's more than a little disturbing.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Add practicality to the list of words you don't know.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You're the one that wants the government to enforce morality especially what you consider moral matters.  

My church teaches me that it's my decision to make for me not yours to make on my behalf.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



When his plan includes him reaching into his own pocket and funding it, that will make me happy.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Nope.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Are you a hedge-fund manager?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Again, your agreement isn't necessary for it to be true.  You keep forgetting that retard.  Must be genetic.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Irrelevant.  That he expects others to be forced to do what he won't do himself is the issue.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



And yet you keep responding to my posts.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Just trying to educate someone spreading untruths.  I've realized that in some cases like yours, stupid can't be educated.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


No, the fact that you repeatedly fail to understand that the plan involves small fees on hedge funds is the issue.

Let me put it in language you can understand: IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



When it's about the government forcing ANYONE, it's about me.  Next think you'll say is being forced to fund social welfare leeches isn't about me.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Just trying to educate someone spreading untruths.



You dropped the mirror.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Then since it isn't, it's still not about you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



When it's about destroying the country, it's about me.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Well, then, you'd best pick up some work gloves at Walmart and go help Donny build his Great Big Wall.

Hyperbole R Us.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


I prefer armed guards at the border.  If they can climb a wall once, they can climb it again.  If they aren't able to climb anymore, problem solved.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



And you'll be happy to pay their salaries, if you aren't already.  Would you volunteer to shoot a few people yourself?  See, now, that's an issue of morality.


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

The right/left thing always reminds me of the Punch-n-Judy puppet show slapstick. Carry on.


----------



## LOki (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."--Lysander Spooner


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



What you should be understanding is that you're an utter imbecile.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that YOU have the Waltons' financial records.  As obsessed as you seem to be, you probably pick through their garbage.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to take other people's money.  That's your schtick.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I am extremely tired of hearing "we forcibly take your money and give it to others" referred to as "investing".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



"Be grateful we're ripping you off THIS way, instead of THAT way."

Can't really see a benefit to me with either one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



It's an investment for the person being educated, and for his family.  For a bunch of strangers?  Not even.

Who's going to replace them?  People who don't have a "Give me everything I want because I'm special" mindset.  Probably not going to get a lot of professional go-getters from the whiner set.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Apparently the majority of Rightists on this board are hedge-fund managers.  Who knew?



LOki said:


> "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."--Lysander Spooner



Now, this is interesting.  You're terrified of the mere word "socialist," but you'll embrace an anarchist because he says what you want to hear.  Yay, anarchy!


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's an investment for the person being educated, and for his family.  For a bunch of strangers?  Not even.



Not sure what you're on about, but this is neither about the Sanders education plan, nor anything to do with the thread topic.  Do you have anything relevant to contribute to either?


----------



## LOki (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Apparently the majority of Rightists on this board are hedge-fund managers.  Who knew?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Argumentum Ad-hominem. Then Strawman. Predictable.



Arianrhod said:


> ...but you'll embrace an anarchist because he says what you want to hear.  Yay, anarchy!


Yay, indeed.

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

LOki said:


> You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.



So you're an anarchist?  That's refreshing!


----------



## LOki (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.
> ...


Seems so.



Arianrhod said:


> That's refreshing!


I guess...


----------



## Flopper (Oct 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > ... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...
> ...


I think those questions were answered long ago


----------



## dblack (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



What is your answer to those questions?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I not saying there should not be a measure of success in most social programs. I am saying that each programs should be evaluated based on realist possibilities.  For example the average drug programs sports a success rate only about 50%.  Some of the best claim 70%.  However, there success drops sharply when measured over 5 year period.
A bureaucrat may look at 40% to 50% success rate as a miserable failure but someone who lives in drug invested community, would see a 50% reduction in drug addicts as a huge success.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No, dumbass.  People who can't get off their dead asses to get their own education are no threat to my children whatsoever.

Resist the urge to believe that you represent anyone except other deadbeats.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Let's put it this way:  there is nothing about your continued existence that I wish to contribute to.  Your life is a nuisance to me, not a benefit.  That will be the answer to ANY question regarding why I don't want to publicly fund something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



If you haven't figured out by the time you're eighteen that adulthood involves a lot of sucky choices and situations, then you must have been buried under a rock.

Not the government's job or the taxpayers' to make your life suck less.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Yeah, people who've been conditioned to expect others to foot the bill for every damned thing they want is CERTAINLY going to be competitive.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No, dipshit.  "Legislating morality" means passing laws to try to make others meet our moral standards.  You don't want to be legally forced to attend church.  I don't want to be legally forced to contribute money to your feel-good programs.

It's not a one way street.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Maybe that's the problem.  Leftists don't like real churches, so they try to make up morality as they go along and force it on people.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...





Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...





Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Presumes facts not in evidence.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.
> ...



The "all-or-nothing" theory of the left rears its ugly, warty head again.

"If you don't want the government to manage every aspect of life, then you HAVE to not want any government at all!"


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Here's where I disagree with you.  The success rate is extremely important.  Merely throwing money at a program with no care as to how effective it is is what leads to multiple programs doing the same thing equally ineffectively.  Money needs to be spent far more wisely than it currently is.  That is a fact.  Re-inventing the wheel over and over helps no one, and in fact harms everyone.


I not saying there should not be a measure of success in most social programs. I am saying that each programs should be evaluated based on realist possibilities.  For example the average drug programs sports a success rate only about 50%.  Some of the best claim 70%.  However, there success drops sharply when measured over 5 year period.
A bureaucrat may look at 40% to 50% success rate as a miserable failure but someone who lives in drug invested community, would see a 50% reduction in drug addicts as a huge success.[/QUOTE]

And here's something many people don't realize, i.e., that numerous workfare programs have been initiated starting in the 1930, but as is usually the case, one Congress approves it, the next Congress cuts off funding.

Yes, there are people in this country who don't want to work...a disproportionate percentage of them are in Congress.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Only presumption of facts not in evidence around here is you presuming that I take you seriously as a real person.  You have the unique distinction of making 2/3 of the leftists on this board actually appear thoughtful and respectable by comparison.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



He confirmed that he was an anarchist.  You'd look smarter if you actually read the posts in the thread.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Only presumption of facts not in evidence around here is you presuming that I take you seriously as a real person.



You're mistaken.  There's also your assumption that I care.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 23, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, since the illiterate fucknut of the board says so . . .


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I find him neither illiterate nor a fucknut.  Not sure what you've got against him, but that's on you.

Was there a time when you posted content to accompany your trolling?


----------



## Flopper (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Practically all state constitutions or statutes make the states responsible for public education and also regularization of healthcare.  Federal health and aid to education  are justified through the general welfare clause.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I'm very much NOT interested in existing statutes or constitutional interpretations. Nor do I care about predictions of what is likely or politically possible. I'm asking if you think it's a good idea to use government in this way. Do you think it's good government? Do you understand why I think it's not?


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Not really.

But it's clear that for you, if that's what you think, there can be no other option.



Arianrhod said:


> You'd look smarter if you actually read the posts in the thread.


You should apply a little of your own glitter-magic to yourself, Princess.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Here's where I disagree with you.  The success rate is extremely important.  Merely throwing money at a program with no care as to how effective it is is what leads to multiple programs doing the same thing equally ineffectively.  Money needs to be spent far more wisely than it currently is.  That is a fact.  Re-inventing the wheel over and over helps no one, and in fact harms everyone.
> ...



And here's something many people don't realize, i.e., that numerous workfare programs have been initiated starting in the 1930, but as is usually the case, one Congress approves it, the next Congress cuts off funding.

Yes, there are people in this country who don't want to work...a disproportionate percentage of them are in Congress.[/QUOTE]
Presumes facts not in evidence.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 24, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



YOU try to justify them as part of that.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 24, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



If what they say is such a good investment, why aren't those who directly benefit from it expected to invest in it?  They say that taxpayers funding college is a good idea yet don't expect the parents of those kids to do anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I was talking about YOU, dipshit.  And once again, you try to pretend that utterly misunderstanding everything that's said is somehow a clever response.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 24, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The "general welfare" clause is not now, nor has it ever been a catch-all for "it'll be really good, so it's okay for us to do!"  Had the Framers of the Constitution intended for the government to simply do whatever it pleased under the guise of "promoting the general welfare", they would not have bothered to spend all those words outlining specific powers and responsibilities.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

LOki said:


> Not really.
> 
> But it's clear that for you, if that's what you think, there can be no other option.



I believed what you said in Post 572.  I won't make that mistake again.



Flopper said:


> Practically all state constitutions or statutes make the states responsible for public education and also regularization of healthcare.  Federal health and aid to education  are justified through the general welfare clause.



Man, they really hate that general welfare clause, don't they?  Unless it involves a Great Big Wall to keep them safe from Mexicans.



			
				dblack said:
			
		

> I'm very much NOT interested in existing statutes or constitutional interpretations. Nor do I care about predictions of what is likely or politically possible. I'm asking if you think it's a good idea to use government in this way. Do you think it's good government? Do you understand why I think it's not?



Personally I'd look at what those existing statutes have or have not accomplished.



Cecilie1200 said:


> The "general welfare" clause is not now, nor has it ever been a catch-all for "it'll be really good, so it's okay for us to do!"  Had the Framers of the Constitution intended for the government to simply do whatever it pleased under the guise of "promoting the general welfare", they would not have bothered to spend all those words outlining specific powers and responsibilities.



How do you imagine they'd feel about the Great Big Wall?


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Not really.
> ...


What? My acknowledgment that you may know what you're talking about?

You proposed that I was an anarchist; I don't really know about such things--I certainly don't know what you mean by such things. Any confirmation of _that_ is something you made up yourself. Per your idiom.



Arianrhod said:


> I won't make that mistake again.


If so, it would be the first time for you, and a good habit for you to develop.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


I would recommend it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Personally I'd look at what those existing statutes have or have not accomplished.



I have, that's why I object to some of them so strenuously.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


So much for you not making your dumb mistake again.

Sorry about your luck, Princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


No, but if you're going to quote someone without knowing anything about them, you could end up conveying a message that's the opposite of what you intend.

For example, there's "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."  It's been variously attributed to Goebbels, Göring, Marx, and Lenin.  Who actually said it, and does the source affect the meaning of the words themselves?


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


No. Inferring that I'm an anarchist is a suitable distraction from addressing the point of the quote.


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


And when you wax knowing where you're entirely ignorant; and you fill your place of ignorance with fabrications from your imagination, you expose yourself as a disingenuous retard.

It's time for you to level up, Princess.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I certainly don't think that was the case in this instance. Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Summing up, then, the message from the Very Angry Rightists is: "I had no idea how health insurance worked until the PPACA was passed, so I had no idea that I was already paying for other people's medical bills in the pass-through to my own bills as well as my insurance premiums.  What I'm really pissed about is the fact that this thread has pointed out my ignorance, so I'm gonna keep posting in it anyway."



			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...





			
				LOki said:
			
		

> ...Princess...



Please stop hitting on me.  I'm not your type.  You'd have better luck with Cecilie.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?



Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll. 

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it.  The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?
> ...


You see? Perhaps I'm not an anarchist then... I'm no fan of bullies either.

But I have to point out to you Princess, you did not address the point of the quote.

Why is that?

Here, I'll do you a solid, and provide it for you again for reference:
_"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." --Lysander Spooner_​


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Is there a poster here named Princess?  That would explain the confusion.


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


No, Princess. It's your fairy tale; where you're the Princess, and your notions about all things are inherently valid because... Princess!

And you don't have to actually address any actual point made, because... Princess!

There's no confusion Princess; you're a princess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

When LOki is finished talking to his Imaginary Friend and wants to talk to Arianrhod, he'll start by reading and responding to Post 611.  Until then, Arianrhod will smile benevolently and ignore LOki's pleas for attention.


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> When LOki is finished talking to his Imaginary Friend and wants to talk to Arianrhod, he'll start by reading and responding to Post 611.  Until then, Arianrhod will smile benevolently and ignore LOki's pleas for attention.


Oh. You submit that you have no  rebuttal to my point.

You should have just said so, Princess.



Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Why not take a crack at critiquing the ideas presented in the quote instead?
> ...


I'm no revolutionary, so I don't subscribe to overthrowing governments.

Also, I've never said that government is intrinsically evil. You're ascibing to me positions I don't hold.

I will throw you this bone, however: the application of government is intrinsically violent. The means of government is the application of raw lethal aggression to achieve ends.



Arianrhod said:


> The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"


I'm still under no obligation to defend positions you assign to me.

You should apply some of your own glitter-magic to yourself, Princess. If you read what anarchists (like Spooner for instance) actually say, rather than make it up from nothing (per your idiom), you might discover that they in fact _do_ provide you with "...what happens next."



Arianrhod said:


> Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.


This is so embarrassing.... fix your dress Princess, your intellectual sloth is showing.

If you had bothered to read what anarchists actually say; if you had bothered to find out what they're actually about-- from sources other than your disinformed imagination-- you might discover that your presumptions and prejudices are entirely inappropriate.

No fear you'll make the attempt; it's not what a Princess does.

I'm sorry if I couldn't answer all your questions, Princess; I'm just not qualified to play the role you made up for me.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

It's amazing how far this thread has ventured - from health insurance to education to discussions of anarchy, etc.

It's also revealed that one of our members has extensive conversations with an Imaginary Friend.  I hope he has health insurance.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

> Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.
> 
> It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it.  The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"
> 
> Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.



The quote in question says none of those things.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> > Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.
> >
> > It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it.  The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"
> >
> ...



This is the quote we're talking about, yes?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

What do you think it means?  What am I missing?


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > > Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.
> ...


Everything.

You discussed what some anarchists --
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 -- fail to address.

You mention nothing of anything posited in the quote.

Try again.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Then clarify it...to me, not to your Imaginary Friend.


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


You are clearly the daintiest of princesses, Princess.

_"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals."_​
What do you think? Reply below.


_"And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."_​
What do you think? Reply below.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Ah, well.  LOki's moment of lucidity has passed.  Pity.  A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.

Hmm, where to start it?  Politics?  Philosophy?


----------



## Dante (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Ah, well.  LOki's moment of lucidity has passed.  Pity.  A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.
> 
> Hmm, where to start it?  Politics?  Philosophy?


agreed

an anarchy thread is a good idea  too


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Dante said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, well.  LOki's moment of lucidity has passed.  Pity.  A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.
> ...



Trying to decide what forum to start it in.  Any suggestions?


----------



## Dante (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


yes

give me a minute or two


----------



## Dante (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

you can state the rules you'd want if any

It would be interesting to see a debate on what people think Anarchy is; a political movement, an ideology, a school of philosophy, whatever an individual says it is, and or any combination of it all


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

^Thanks! 

And here we go:

Debate Now - Anarchy: What is it, what is it not? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > > Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.
> ...



It's what you're adding that's the problem. It says nothing about government being evil, nothing about overthrowing government, nothing about staging a coup, nothing about assassination. Literally nothing in your response was claimed or alluded to in the quote.

What you're missing is the actually meaning of the sentences. It's saying that government should have no rights denied individuals. It's another formulation of exactly what I posted earlier, that I don't want government doing anything that I wouldn't have the right to do myself. I'd have every right to defend myself, or others, from aggressors and thieves -and so does government. But I'd have no right to force people to buy my products, or hire me, or otherwise give me money against their will, and neither should government.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Okay, I don't know why, but I keep screwing up the quotes in that post.  I've edited it half a dozen times and it still ends up looking like ^that.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."
> 
> I’d think most people would define “trespassers, robbers, or murderers” as evil.



I'm sorry, but this is just a problem with reading comprehension. Seriously, read it again. The quote is saying that if someone trespasses, robs and murders it doesn't matter if they call themselves or government or not - they're equally responsible for their acts. We have to be a little smarter than simply taking a line or two out of context and demagoguing it.



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > …nothing about overthrowing government, nothing about staging a coup, nothing about assassination. Literally nothing in your response was claimed or alluded to in the quote.
> ...



Again, you're injecting meaning that isn't there. You're simply eager to discount the argument, and conveniently ignore it, by attacking the source. That's cheap, and not a valid response. Why not actually address the ideas. Do you think government should have the right to initiate violence in situations where an individual wouldn't? Why, or why not? For example, do you think you should have the right to force your neighbors to buy insurance? Should government? What's the difference, in your view? That's the question of the quote - not all the other baggage you're dragging in.


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Spooner is saying that if and when government is the aggressor, they are just as wrong as an individual would be. Government should defend us from bullies, not use it's own power to bully us (even if the claim it's for our own good).



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep. Spooner is questioning the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, no doubt about that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 24, 2015)

The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...

If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."
> ...



Not sure I can answer all of that without screwing up the quote tags again.  Will try later...



Damaged Eagle said:


> The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...
> 
> If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?
> 
> *****SMILE*****



Do you have any figures for this?  I'd be very interested.


----------



## LOki (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Okay, I don't know why, but I keep screwing up the quotes in that post.  I've edited it half a dozen times and it still ends up looking like ^that.


You threw in an extra dblack tag.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 24, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...
> 
> If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?
> 
> *****SMILE*****



Do you have any figures for this?  I'd be very interested.[/QUOTE]






When I joined at the end of the Viet Nam war the VA covered optical and dental for retired vets and was the first things they cut.

Over the years the retired vets have had to start paying for the pills they are prescribed, pay more and more of costs for rooms when provided services at the hospital while in their care, etc, etc, etc,...

How many billions (trillions?) do you suppose they saved by Congress changing the deal with the vets because you can't win against city hall?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Okay, dblack, in the interim, I’ve been reading bits of _ No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority_.  It makes a lot more sense now.  Spooner’s premise is that government should not exist, and the Constitution has no authority.

Given how many people on this board start squawking about the Founders at the slightest provocation (sorry, but I see “Founders” and I think of this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ), I don’t imagine this would be too popular…except with regard to anything that’s transpired since January 2009.

Now, I may read the entire thing someday, but I’m a little pressed for time this weekend, so I’m still left wondering “What happens next?”

If we agree with Spooner that governments are meaningless and the Constitution should have no authority over us, do we change anything or, like Spooner, do we just go about our business?  There doesn’t seem to be any history of vigilantism or even civil disobedience in Spooner’s personal history; the most daring thing he seems to have done is to try – unsuccessfully – to compete with the USPS.  (If only he’d waited, he could have founded UPS!)  So it seems that anarchy, as embodied in Spooner, is little more than an intellectual exercise.

I can see where he’d have loved the Occupy Movement and they him, though.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...
> ...








When I joined at the end of the Viet Nam war the VA covered optical and dental for retired vets and was the first things they cut.

Over the years the retired vets have had to start paying for the pills they are prescribed, pay more and more of costs for rooms when provided services at the hospital while in their care, etc, etc, etc,...

How many billions (trillions?) do you suppose they saved by Congress changing the deal with the vets because you can't win against city hall?

*****SMILE*****


[/QUOTE]

Damn, that sucks!  Congress has been stealing from Social Security since the Reagan years, too.  A big part of the problem, I think, is that voters are unaware of these things and keep reelecting the same clowns who continue their pilfering.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Okay, dblack, in the interim, I’ve been reading bits of _ No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority_.  It makes a lot more sense now.  Spooner’s premise is that government should not exist, and the Constitution has no authority.
> 
> Given how many people on this board start squawking about the Founders at the slightest provocation (sorry, but I see “Founders” and I think of this:
> 
> ...


I don't know anything about Spooner. Nor do I care. The quote, however, makes a good point and raises questions you seem to be side-stepping. Can you address them directly?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, dblack, in the interim, I’ve been reading bits of _ No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority_.  It makes a lot more sense now.  Spooner’s premise is that government should not exist, and the Constitution has no authority.
> ...


Ask me one question at a time.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



Damn, that sucks!  Congress has been stealing from Social Security since the Reagan years, too.  A big part of the problem, I think, is that voters are unaware of these things and keep reelecting the same clowns who continue their pilfering.[/QUOTE]






I'll ask again...

If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...








I'll ask again...

If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?

*****SMILE*****


[/QUOTE]
The PPACA is not the government providing either healthcare or health insurance.  It provides access to affordable insurance through private insurers.  Totally different model than the VA.

ETA: And make sure you know what your Senators and Reps are up to.  Know what their record is on funding the VA.  If they're cutting or vetoing funds, get the word out and, come election time, nail their asses to the floor!


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > I'll ask again...
> ...







So what you're saying is that the progressive promise wasn't about health care for all...

It was just about making other people pay to private businesses so the businesses could make more profits.

What was the name of that guy who promoted this ACA stuff who called all the progressives... stupid?

I'm sure Wall Street appreciated all that the progressives have done for them.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> So what you're saying is that the progressive promise wasn't about health care for all...
> 
> It was just about making other people pay to private businesses so the businesses could make more profits.



What I'm saying is that the PPACA was built on the Romneycare model which, as the name might suggest, was Mitt Romney's solution to health insurance reform in Massachusetts. 

It went through 51 Congressional revisions led by the GOP.

It is not an ideal solution.  An ideal solution would be single-payer...skipping over the middleman (the insurance companies).  But the insurers have powerful lobbies and you know how that goes.

Single-payer will become a reality eventually.  In the meantime, millions of Americans now have access to affordable health insurance who didn't have it before - either because premiums were obscenely high, or because they were denied for preexisting conditions, or because they were bumped because the insurer decided to cap their benefits.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Huh? I'm not going to type them out again. Feel free to answer them one at a time, if you prefer.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Sigh...okay.  I thought this was important to you.  Can you at least tell me which post they're in?  As you can tell, I sometimes have trouble with multiple quote tags.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 24, 2015)

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?



If I can, then yes, I am.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is that the progressive promise wasn't about health care for all...
> ...








So now what you're saying is that the Democratic president and Democratic Congress, since the Democrats had the majority at that time and could pass anything they wanted, didn't have the balls to provide the progressives your ideal solution.

Maybe the Democrats and progressives should grow a set of...

*****CHUCKLE*****




...instead of always attempting to blame it on someone else.


----------



## dblack (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Nevermind.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> So now what you're saying is that the Democratic president and Democratic Congress, since the Democrats had the majority at that time and could pass anything they wanted, didn't have the ballsvotes to provide the progressives your ideal solution.



The U.S. will join the 21st century eventually.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 24, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > So now what you're saying is that the Democratic president and Democratic Congress, since the Democrats had the majority at that time and could pass anything they wanted, didn't have the ballsvotes to provide the progressives your ideal solution.
> ...








With what's going on in Europe and the United States right now due to the progressives I figure everything is going to be set back a century or two.

It looks like you got the hang of the 'quote' thingee finally.....

I thought it was against the forum rules to change what another person wrote when quoting them.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 24, 2015)

^If it is, I'm sure someone will slap my wrist for it.

Anyway, if you're really interested, you can follow the history at any of the sites here:

Google

If not, I think we're done here.


----------



## LOki (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Try these:

_"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals."_​
What do you think? Is it possible that people can obtain rights over other people (or their property) which they didn't have as individuals, just by forming a group and declaring themselves a government?

_"And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."_​
What do you think? If people cannot obtain rights over others just by declaring themselves a government, are they not criminals according to the acts they commit, when they trespass, rob, and/or murder as a function of their position in government?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Thank you - this is helpful!



LOki said:


> Try these:
> 
> _"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals."_​
> What do you think? Is it possible that people can obtain rights over other people (or their property) which they didn't have as individuals, just by forming a group and declaring themselves a government?



Historically they have and will continue to do so.  Can you name a country where one group of people isn't in charge and making the rules?  I can't.  Then it becomes a matter of the majority (the people not calling themselves a government) to shape the powers of that controlling group, usually by way of law.



LOki said:


> _"And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."_​
> What do you think? If people cannot obtain rights over others just by declaring themselves a government, are they not criminals according to the acts they commit, when they trespass, rob, and/or murder as a function of their position in government?



Absolutely.  Imagine what Spooner would have thought of Citizens United.

But then there's the follow-on question: What can the ordinary citizen do about those criminals?  A good place to begin, IMO, would be to find a consensus around the definitions of "trespass" and "rob" ("murder" is pretty clear-cut).


----------



## LOki (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Try these:
> ...


Really? I can't think of one instance.

Can you provide one, and explain the mechanism by which that happened?



Arianrhod said:


> Can you name a country where one group of people isn't in charge and making the rules?  I can't.


 Neither can I; and in all those intances the government seems to mostly be a criminal enterprise.







Arianrhod said:


> Then it becomes a matter of the majority (the people not calling themselves a government) to shape the powers of that controlling group, usually by way of law.









Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > _"And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."_​
> ...


Then I don't understand your response to the premise  of Spooner's assertion. The group possesses legitimate rights that none of its members possess individually, or they are exercising something else entirely.



Arianrhod said:


> Imagine what Spooner would have thought of Citizens United.


I imagine it would be the same as his thoughts on the ACA.(Suddenly we're back to the OP.)



Arianrhod said:


> But then there's the follow-on question: What can the ordinary citizen do about those criminals?  A good place to begin, IMO, would be to find a consensus around the definitions of "trespass" and "rob" ("murder" is pretty clear-cut).


I think the meanings of those terms are already well established. Maybe if the "consensus" could be made to understand the source of the the authority to commit those criminal acts, and their moral (if not technically legal) culpability in the commission of those acts, maybe there'd be a change in the perceived legitimacy of those acts.

​


----------



## dblack (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Thank you - this is helpful!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because someone gets away with something doesn't mean it's a right. I suspect this is going to come down to the usual misunderstanding of what inalienable rights are in the first place.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 25, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



In his world, telling people how smart he is makes him smart, so . . .

Arian isn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, in case you hadn't noticed before.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 25, 2015)

LOki said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



He thinks utterly misunderstanding what people say is a brilliantly clever debate tactic.  His only purpose in being here is to suck up everyone's attention and prevent any real discussion from ever happening.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 25, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."
> ...



As he should.  The Constitution exists primarily to LIMIT the power of government, so that it can't violate the rights of people.  It isn't about saying, "The government can do this, and this, and, you know, whatever else it thinks will promote 'general welfare'".  It's about saying, "The government can't do this, and it's limited to that, and it's a necessary evil that exists in these boundaries."

But we have a lot of idiots in this country who can't impose their insane worldview on the people by any other method.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Cecilie employs the standard Third-Grade Girl ploy...whispering about me behind her hand because she can't address me in the first person.

The intellectually bankrupt response not only to the PPACA but, judging from the rest of her posts across the board, anything to do with "The Country I Claim to Love but Actually Hate Because I'm Not Getting What I Want."

She probably also has me on Ignore because my words scare her, so it's okay if I adopt her ploy and talk about her as if she isn't here.

"Cecilie Hates Everything Obama"...film at 11.  No, actually, story cancelled because it's about as newsworthy as the Kardashians.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 25, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yes, because government exists to serve the people, not the privileged few who would benefit from lower cost government.


----------



## dblack (Oct 25, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



To serve them against their will?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Car insurance, seat-belt laws, traffic lights...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 25, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



He means "serve" like a bad waitress in a third-rate diner, bringing you things you don't want and then demanding you pay the check anyway.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Has that been your experience with health insurance?  You need a new insurer.


----------



## LOki (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I had excellent health insurance, but then this happened:


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Wow, you guys sure do have a lot of Photoshops and carefully trimmed video clips.

The adults will be signing more people up for affordable health insurance.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 25, 2015)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/stateline-obama-health-care/4471957/

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71749/obamas-affordable-care-act-looking-bit-unaffordable

Does anyone else wonder exactly when we are all going to stop accommodating leftists' fantasies that they're serious adults with anything useful to contribute to the world?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Does Cecilie know what deductibles were like before the PPACA?  Of course she doesn't.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...








So we're now requiring people to have insurance just because they happen to be breathing?

Perhaps they should also be required to have a license to breed also.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Does Cecilie know what deductibles were like before the PPACA?  Of course she doesn't.



I do.  I also know that the copays have doubled since Obamacare went into effect while, prior to that, they changed very little the over 10 year time I've been there.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> So we're now requiring people to have insurance just because they happen to be breathing?



And calling themselves U.S. citizens.

BTW, as a veteran, you might want to pay attention to this:

GOP Candidate Says Military Retirees Must Pay More for Health Care | Military.com



Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Does Cecilie know what deductibles were like before the PPACA?  Of course she doesn't.
> ...



Then you need to speak to your employer about choosing a different insurer for your group plan.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > So we're now requiring people to have insurance just because they happen to be breathing?
> ...



It's the same with ALL of them and it didn't happen until Obamacare went into effect.  Again, do you really want to keep saying you're not a Democrat?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



No, it isn't.  Whoever told you that is lying.  Of course, you have the ability to check for yourself, but we both know you won't, so there you are.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > So we're now requiring people to have insurance just because they happen to be breathing?
> ...








It's nice to know that we now have such a free society with people like you around.

Were you going to answer the other question about obtaining a license to breed or is that next on the progressive agenda and you don't want to let the secret out quite yet?

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
C. S. Lewis

I already knew about the changes to the VA medical... Obviously the vets are going to have to start being paid more by giving them 5-10% pay increases, like a lot of the government employees not in the military think they need, to they can meet their obligations since the government wishes to keep cutting their benefits.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Were you going to answer the other question about obtaining a license to breed or is that next on the progressive agenda and you don't want to let the secret out quite yet?



Didn't realize you were serious about that.  Okay, here's my opinion: Parenting classes should be taught in junior high.  Not quite a "license to breed," but some valuable information that might stop kids from breeding too young.  Something like this:

Baby dolls equipped to give students a realistic experience - Indiana Economic Digest

might be helpful, but only if boys have equal time with girls.

However, in an atmosphere where Christian extremists are trying their damnedest to make sure their children (and anyone else's) have absolutely NO information about reproduction, I don't see it happening, do you?


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Were you going to answer the other question about obtaining a license to breed or is that next on the progressive agenda and you don't want to let the secret out quite yet?
> ...








Since you feel people require insurance just because they are breathing it should be easy to pass a law that requires people to get a license to breed... I believe there was a past president for a law similar to this in the past called...

Fortification Under Consent of the King.

This should be no problem for a bunch of progressives to enact... After all you have Planned Parenthood in place to enforce such a law.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 25, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Since you feel people require insurance...



No, that would be the law.  Do you feel oppressed by auto insurance?



Damaged Eagle said:


> just because they are breathing...



...and living in the U.S. and calling themselves "Americans" and expecting the privileges of being Americans.  You keep leaving that part out.  Why?



Damaged Eagle said:


> it should be easy to pass a law that requires people to get a license to breed...



Since that's important to you, you'd better get busy.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 25, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Since you feel people require insurance...
> ...



Then require everyone to get auto insurance also even if they don't have a vehicle.



Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > just because they are breathing...
> ...



You're the one who's bringing it up...

What privileges are they being given that concerns you so much?



Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > it should be easy to pass a law that requires people to get a license to breed...
> ...



I expect a law like this in the making within the next decade or so therefore I can wait.





*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Then require everyone to get auto insurance also even if they don't have a vehicle.


As soon as you require the noncorporeal to have health insurance.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



The privilege of seeking healthcare from an American clinic or hospital without a concomitant ability to pay for it.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



Fair enough!


----------



## dblack (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Fuck off, troll.


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 First of all The OP question gets to the very core of what socialism is all about, so I have not strayed off topic, and I am not the one who brought up education in the first place.

Second, no I was not aware that state universities where tuition-free, and yes I know I will have the option of private college, for now at least. What is your point? A mistake was made and corrected.

Third, why is it that you think that I would raise my son to believe that a hand-out from the government is ok to accept? Furthermore, why is it that most liberals believe that if the government does not provide then people are on their own? I, for example, received scholarships from several* private* organizations to take part in life changing experiences, such as Post-Secondary School. It is very interesting to me that the same people who claim "the rich should pay their fair share" (liberals), discount what the "rich" do despite "paying their fair share".

As to the OP, I am willing to help pay for heathcare for those less fortunate than myself. However, I would prefer to do it on *my* terms, it's my money, I earned it, who the f*** are you to tell me what I should use it for?

What is next? Socialised car ownership? Homes? (kinda got started in the 1990's) Cell phones? Oh, wait, already happened. Where does the re-distribution stop? When everyone has exactly the same things? Is it really un-fairness, or is it that some people are willing to make sacrifices others are not? Some are willing to work harder/smarter than others. If socialized medicine is sooo wonderful, why are the Canadians, who have the ability, coming to the U.S. for treatment? Or the Europeans? Or the Castros? Or pretty much everyone throughout the world?

So, yes, I am willing to help those less fortunate than me, but it should be on my terms, not some arbitrary government mandate.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Already have.  We know you could accept the truth but it would mean destroying the bleeding heart mindset you have.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Then require everyone to get auto insurance also even if they don't have a vehicle.
> ...



I see... Just because they breath and may one day need to drive during an emergency you aren't going to force them to have insurance for that.

Hypocrite!



Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



What????? Do you work for the health care system and have one of these guys/gals come in and not pay for services rendered? Lot's of businesses have that happen to them. Screw this having to buy insurance or having a 'single payer system'...

Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.







*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## dblack (Oct 26, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.



If we're going to make health care a government responsibility, that's the only sane way to do it. Or better yet, don't nationalize it, but rather handle it like we do state funded public education.

But that's where common sense gets in the way of underlying motives.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 26, 2015)

dblack said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.
> ...








The people in public education make more than the people in private education in the area that I live in. Yet the private school students do better on placements for college. I think all of the people in public education should be put on the government military pay scale also..... Besides when the school administrator makes more than a O-9, five star general/admiral, with thirty years in there's something wrong with the way government pays it's employees.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

oldsoul said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...



Your last sentence says it all.  The bleeding hearts on the left think it's their place to determine on someone else's behalf who and to what level someone should be helped.  If I see something as a legitimate need, If I can help I will.  If I don't see it as such and my answer is no, the bleeding hearts think it's OK to force it from me and others because they've determined it is legitimate and the I and others should help.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > It's the same with ALL of them...
> ...





Conservative65 said:


> Already have.  We know you could accept the truth but it would mean destroying the bleeding heart mindset you have.



You expect people to believe that you compared every tier of every insurer in your state and they all quoted you exactly the same premium and exactly the same deductible?  Extraordinary.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



Hey, if you want to call your Congressman and demand insurance coverage for zombies, no one’s stopping you.  OTOH, it might be more productive of you to look at the voting records of the current Presidential candidates and see who’s got the best record on veterans’ benefits.

Except of course three of them have no records because they’ve never been part of any governmental body ever.  Well, maybe Carson did pro bono work at a VA hospital once; I’m sure that would be on his record.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


The point you’re missing is that if more people have insurance, fewer people will kite without paying their bills.  Hospital costs go down, hospitals don’t have to close or file for bankruptcy – win/win.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.


Whatever system we end up with, we’ll have had the advantage of studying the existing systems in other countries and learning from their mistakes.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live.  One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance.  I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits.  I've checked.  You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat.  Still claiming you aren't one?


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 26, 2015)

dblack said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.
> ...


 Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 The piont *you're m*issing, is: if more people have isurance, more people will go to the doctor, overwelming and already inadaquate number of doctors. Therefore, forcing rationing.


Arianrhod said:


> Whatever system we end up with, we’ll have had the advantage of studying the existing systems in other countries and learning from their mistakes.


 
Because, it's not that the system is flawed, it's that *we *haven't done it yet...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

oldsoul said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



There are students coming out of high school that have to take remedial classes in college and those that run the educational system in this country want the rest of us to believe they can do a good job with healthcare.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live.  One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance.  I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits.  I've checked.  You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat.  Still claiming you aren't one?



I am registered as unaffiliated.  Always have been.  Your repeated use of "Democrat" as if it's something illicit is your perception and nothing else.  Constantly harping on it undermines your credibility.

As for your local fire department, if it employs fewer than 49 people, it's exempt from the PPACA mandate.  As a board member, you should be aware of that.



oldsoul said:


> Oh, right. Cause Public education has been such a rousing sucess... LOL



Do you think a national education system would be preferable?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live.  One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance.  I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits.  I've checked.  You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat.  Still claiming you aren't one?
> ...



You can call yourself what you want.  It's what you support that matters.  Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.

As a board member, I do know that.  I wouldn't have said anything about it if it we had less than 49.  That should tell you something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Does Cecilie know what deductibles were like before the PPACA?  Of course she doesn't.
> ...



He's one of those liberals who thinks if he just makes a vague reference to some information he doesn't provide, we'll believe it exists without demanding that he prove it.


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 26, 2015)

Um... What do you think the common core debacle is?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



He must have missed the fact that many employers are looking at dropping health insurance and making their employees subject themselves to the exchanges.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 26, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



Reminds me of an old saying:  "She was the kind of person who lived for other people.  You could tell the other people by the hunted expression on their faces."

God save me from people who want to do "what's best for me", whether I agree or not.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2015)

oldsoul said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Two reasons why the "not with my tax dollars!!!11!" group is resistant to tuition-free education at state universities (which, BTW, is the way it used to be in the 1950s they ordinarily tout so highly). Two-year certificate kids might compete with their own kids for jobs, and four-year kids getting "free stuff" is anathema.
> ...



You are speaking a language our socialist types just can't comprehend because the concept of self-reliance confuses them.

They can not and will not relinquish what they consider their constitutional right to spend _your_ money as _they_ see fit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



One need only look at the Internet to see how functionally illiterate much of our population has become.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds...



Paying for social welfare - regardless of its potential benefits (and I have my doubts about free school) - with "a small fee on hedge funds" is not paying "for itself."


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Ideologically stuck on leftism, Arian tends to miss (or ignore) most facts.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 26, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Against whose will?  Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs.  84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced.  48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps.  Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 26, 2015)

dblack said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.
> ...


So healthcare should be funded  by the states liked public education? Counties with the wealthiest property owners and the highest property taxes should have the best medical facilities as well as the best schools?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 26, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Oh, he ignores them, because his entire purpose for being here is to totally shut down any ability for people to discuss things substantially, by throwing up a smokescreen of erroneous, blindingly stupid and obtuse posts for everyone to wade through.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Against whose will?  Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs.  84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced.  48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps.  Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.



That support would be from either the 49% of Americans who get gov't bennies, the 48% of American workers who pay no federal income tax or some combo of the two.

No surprise there. Social programs like food stamps, welfare and Medicaid are approved of by those who benefit but are paid for by those who don't.

INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.


----------



## LOki (Oct 26, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.


^ THIS.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> You can call yourself what you want.  It's what you support that matters.  Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.



I'm not denying anything.  I've told you the truth about my voter registration status.  I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for posting here.  Will you expect to see a copy of my ballot next?  I'm afraid I'd have to draw the line there.  Again, I have to wonder why you keep interjecting this into virtually every exchange between us as if you think it enhances your credibility.



Conservative65 said:


> As a board member, I do know that.  I wouldn't have said anything about it if it we had less than 49.  That should tell you something.



It tells me that there are more the 49 employees, and therefore the PPACA employer mandate applies.  What's the likelihood that the board will decide to reduce some employees to part-time status in order to do a workaround?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds...
> ...



This would be an excellent contribution to the ongoing "free stuff" topic in the Elections forum, but I'm not certain why it's in a thread discussing health insurance.  Then again, this thread seems to have bifurcated more than once into a multiplicity of topics, so why not?

Since we're no longer discussing health insurance, has Trump done the math on how much his Great Big Wall will cost the taxpayer?  I'd be very interested in some actual data on that, but I suspect there aren't any.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

oldsoul said:


> Um... What do you think the common core debacle is?



Apparently no one here who's made the claim is able to defend their reasons.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > You can call yourself what you want.  It's what you support that matters.  Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.
> ...



I agree that not all leftists are Dems but most vote Dem and Con clearly stated that your voter registration is not the issue but rather your slavish adherence to your Dem-like eat-the-rich POV.

Indeed, any organization that can do a legal workaround to expensive gov't regulations and requirements certainly should and probably would despite the hurt it puts on employees.

So how does that make America better?



Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Lame dodge. You stated that free school would "pay for itself" and I merely pointed out the obvious fallacy in your leftist POV.

What you undoubtedly meant was that _you_ wouldn't be paying for it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> I agree that not all leftists are Dems but most vote Dem and Con clearly stated that your voter registration is not the issue but rather your slavish adherence to your Dem-like eat-the-rich POV.



Another poster who sees “Democrat” as something illicit.  Interesting.  But while we’re on the subject, can you possibly teach some of those on your side that “Democrat” is a noun and “Democratic” (as in “Democratic party”) is the adjectival form?  From a linguistic POV, the misuse is jarring.


SAYIT said:


> Indeed, any organization that can do a legal workaround to expensive gov't regulations and requirements certainly should and probably would despite the hurt it puts on employees.
> 
> So how does that make America better?


It doesn’t.  Why would you imagine it did?



SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


No, I didn’t.  I said the Sanders _education plan_ would make it possible for state universities to return to tuition-free status.  (Hint: It would not involve bake sales.)


SAYIT said:


> What you undoubtedly meant was that _you_ wouldn't be paying for it.



Neither would you.  But until you understand that, you’re arguing from a false premise and Donald Trump is planning to tax you directly so he can build his Great Big Wall.  Don’t say I didn’t warn you.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You stated that free school would "pay for itself."
> ...



I guess I misunderstood. When you posted - and I quote - "the Sanders plan would pay for itself" I thought you meant the Sanders plan would pay for itself. My bad.

BTW, the plan will not "pay for itself" but rather people - other than those who directly benefit - will pay for it.

Sheesh.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 26, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Against whose will?  Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs.  84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced.  48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps.  Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.
> ...


That's exactly what the communist said years ago.  The Americans will spend themselves to death.  In a Democratic form of government the people get what they want even it's bad for them.


----------



## LOki (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > You can call yourself what you want.  It's what you support that matters.  Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.
> ...


It is required so that the genetic fallacy can be more readily applied.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

^Thank you!  Wish I could give that post more than one rating.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



How many of those Americans not in favor of cutting social welfare programs benefit from social welfare programs?

Why would those who get the handouts support cutting them.  To them, it's like having someone else's credit card.  You get what you want and don't have to pay for it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > You can call yourself what you want.  It's what you support that matters.  Refusing to acknowledge it undermines what little you thought you had.
> ...



I don't doubt what it says.  I am saying, based on what you believe, it fits that of a Democrat.  I don't care what you call yourself, I care what you believe and what you believe is what Democrats believe.  Denying that loses credibility on your part.  

The likelihood of reducing any employees to part time is ZERO.  Perhaps you didn't see what the nature of the business happens to be.  Doing something like that would be far more detrimental but I understand that those with a lack of knowledge in that area would think it would be considered.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> The likelihood of reducing any employees to part time is ZERO.  Perhaps you didn't see what the nature of the business happens to be.  Doing something like that would be far more detrimental but I understand that those with a lack of knowledge in that area would think it would be considered.



First responders frequently have their hours (and sometimes their numbers) cut for budgetary reasons.  If yours has not had to do so previously, they're among the lucky ones.


----------



## LOki (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> ^Thank you!  Wish I could give that post more than one rating.


Annoyingly, it's the fallacy that comprises 90% of all arguments around here, and it's weighted as if it's 100,000,000,000% valid.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > INEPTOCRACY - (Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
> ...



"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

The earliest known attribution of this quote was December 9, 1951, in what appears to be an op-ed piece in _The Daily Oklahoman_ under the byline Elmer T. Peterson, Elmer T. Peterson (9 December 1951). "This is the Hard Core of Freedom". _Daily Oklahoman_: p. 12A.. The quote has not been found in Tytler's work. It has also been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.
There are many variants circulating with various permutations of _majority_, _voters_, _citizens_, or _public_. Ronald Reagan is known to have used this in speeches, as reported in Loren Collins, "The Truth About Tytler":
Other variants:
The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexander Fraser Tytler - Wikiquote


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > The likelihood of reducing any employees to part time is ZERO.  Perhaps you didn't see what the nature of the business happens to be.  Doing something like that would be far more detrimental but I understand that those with a lack of knowledge in that area would think it would be considered.
> ...



In the county where I live, we have approximately 30 fire departments.  While, through agreements, each department will share equipment and cooperate should an incident occur needing more resources than the one jurisdiction where it happens is able to provide, each department is administratively, organizationally, and financially separate.  That means, except for the municipalities within the county lines where a city council runs the show, there are boards in existence much like the one where I serve for their respective departments.  While I am a commissioner, I am also a volunteer for the department and have been  for over 20 years.  I have lived in the community as long as I can remember.  The department has grown from what once was volunteer only to what it is today.  Not once since I've been a part of it has cutting hours or numbers been considered.  In fact, since we have a county-wide association made up of those in similar positions as myself and we meet once/month, I can say that NONE of the departments have considered doing that.  

It's not a matter of luck.  It's a matter of good financial planning.  We haven't cut a single thing for the members and have very little turnover.  I grew up with many of those that are career members of the department as we all started as volunteers around the same time.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live.  One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance.  I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits.  I've checked.  You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat.  Still claiming you aren't one?
> ...



A better question is do YOU think one is preferable?  If so, where do you find the federal government's Constitutional authority to do so.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Hadn't really thought about it.


----------



## LOki (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I serve as an elected commissioner for the local fire department where I live.  One of the biggest expenses we have is insurance.  I'm not on it as the position is non-compensated by pay or benefits.  I've checked.  You don't have to believe me for it to be true but your refusal to do so because you disagree is that of a typical Democrat.  Still claiming you aren't one?
> ...


Once, in an on-line community comprised mostly of folks from the liberal/leftist/Democratic bent of the political spectrum, I sailed out the notion that public schools should only be military academies.

I thought the resultant melee would be hilarious.

I postulated that there would be plenty of private education opportunities to choose from for obvious reasons; all competing for tuitions by increasing quality and lowering costs, in accordance with well established economic principles. Education would be of better quality and lower cost.

We could then fully embrace private education, while allowing for tuition-free options for those unable (or un-willing) to afford private tuitions--but this tax-payer subsidized education would come out of the DOD budget.

The problem of discipline in the military academies would be minimized by the typical time-tested military measures: e.g. mandatory uniform (courtesy of the DOD) dress code, rigid codes of conduct, respect for authority, etc...

Military schools would certainly focus on those values esteemed in the military--respect for your superiors, loyalty and duty to your country and peers, disciplined behavior, physical fitness--but also the academic values of excellent communication, math, and science skills.

All vocations utilized by the military would be offered to students--without any requirement that they be applied to military service--fulfilling (to the extent a student is capable) the requisite academic skills for being an effective plumber, carpenter, electrician, heavy equipment operator, teamster, mechanic, doctor, nurse, lawyer, engineer, etc...

The least capable students would graduate with the ability to make a bed precisely, attend to their basic personal hygiene, and operate under the hierarchy of superiors. They'd be better prepared for soldiering, if nothing else.

Excellence in everything (from discipline to academics) in the Private Schools would be facilitated by the real (and economically attractive) threat of Military school.

The real funny thing was, there was no hilarious melee.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



There are plenty that have and think it should be done that way.  However, I haven't had one yet to show me where the federal government has Constitutional authority to do it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Then I guess you'd better take it up with them.


----------



## oldsoul (Oct 26, 2015)

This sounds like a *great *idea, LOki. Only thing I would add is, I wish I had thought it up.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

LOki said:


> Once, in an on-line community comprised mostly of folks from the liberal/leftist/Democratic bent of the political spectrum, I sailed out the notion that public schools should only be military academies.
> 
> I thought the resultant melee would be hilarious.
> 
> ...



Interesting, and well thought out.  Thing is, you'd need a provision for kids with disabilities who couldn't fulfill the fitness requirements.

You'd also catch holy hell from the homeschoolers and the "evolution is just a theory" crowd and the abstinence-only crowd (quite a lot of overlap there), and constant efforts to force Christian teachings into the curriculum.

Still, I've always thought a mandatory service year after high school (something akin to the Peace Corps or Vista) would be a good thing.  Give kids a chance to mature before they started college or trade school or entered the job market, as well as a chance to travel and do public service.

Any time I've suggested it, I've caught hell from conservatives.  Go figure...


----------



## LOki (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Once, in an on-line community comprised mostly of folks from the liberal/leftist/Democratic bent of the political spectrum, I sailed out the notion that public schools should only be military academies.
> ...


Thanks.

But like I said, I was just hoping to kick an ant-hill--to watch the fun. Pure mischief.

That said, I have some seat of the pants responses to your commentary:



Arianrhod said:


> Thing is, you'd need a provision for kids with disabilities who couldn't fulfill the fitness requirements.


Two thoughts:

There's still the option of pretty affordable Private School for these folks. There's no reason private institutions could not provide (privately funded) tuition assistance and/or scholarships attached to any qualifications they deem suitable for their purposes.
The military has greater use/need for able minds than able bodies. And it's not as if these kids were actually joining the military anyway--they're just being educated by it.



Arianrhod said:


> You'd also catch holy hell from the homeschoolers and the "evolution is just a theory" crowd and the abstinence-only crowd (quite a lot of overlap there), and constant efforts to force Christian teachings into the curriculum.


That's what private school is for.

(And seriously, let them have their retarded schools steeped in superstition. When those unfortunate kids graduate with their useless "education", they can still join the military where they'll get their heads straightened out efficiently, or they'll be perfectly suited to be meat-shields for the more competent--and valuable--service members.)



Arianrhod said:


> Still, I've always thought a mandatory service year after high school (something akin to the Peace Corps or Vista) would be a good thing.  Give kids a chance to mature before they started college or trade school or entered the job market, as well as a chance to travel and do public service.
> 
> Any time I've suggested it, I've caught hell from conservatives.  Go figure...


Meh. I don't think folks around here consider me too terribly conservative.. you'd have to ask them though. But I'm apparently agreeing with them, but mostly on the basis that I'm not a big fan of anything that's simply compulsory. You know, potential anarchist and all.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

^I'm liking this more and more, especially given how incredibly WHINY some Millennials are.  They suffer from what Louis CK calls "White People's Problems."  (Not entirely their fault; most were raised by helicopter parents and given a trophy for showing up in grade school.  They hit the job market and don't understand why they don't automatically get every job they apply for.)


----------



## LOki (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> ^I'm liking this more and more, especially given how incredibly WHINY some Millennials are.  They suffer from what Louis CK calls "White People's Problems."  (Not entirely their fault; most were raised by helicopter parents and given a trophy for showing up in grade school.  They hit the job market and don't understand why they don't automatically get every job they apply for.)


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 26, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I can see that you're having difficulties staying on track with this conversation since you now wish to deflect into other areas.

Did the logical fallacy that you used backfire on you?

That really is too bad.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



The same holds true for requiring everyone to purchase car insurance if they have an emergency and need to drive a vehicle.

I'm thinking everyone should be required to purchase a life insurance policy of at least $10,000 so they can't leave the government, or whoever, having to pay for the funeral costs.

Hey!!!!! We could create a whole new line of insurance policies that people are required by law to purchase like a extended home insurance policy to ensure they have shelter of some sort. How about a sustenance policy so they know their going to at least be able to purchase a Big Mac if they're hungry?

I think these ideas have a lot of merit... We could possibly do away with a lot of government programs and let private industry handle things like funerals, shelter, and sustenance, if everyone is required to carry insurance policies for those things.



Arianrhod said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the solution I'll accept since you seem so intent on having health care available to all. Nationalize the health care industry and put all it's employees on the government/military pay scale. Then health care is made available to all for the same price.
> ...



But you want health care for all don't you? Then we should nationalize the industry and have the government run it. It's for the 'General Welfare' of all isn't that the way you progressives put it? Then it should be for 'all'.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## dblack (Oct 26, 2015)

oldsoul said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



I certainly don't think it would be a "rousing success", but it would be locally controlled and a let less likely to attract vultures.


----------



## dblack (Oct 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Against whose will? According to your stats, anywhere from 16 to 60 percent of voters.


----------



## dblack (Oct 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...



Yep. Rich people can afford better stuff. That won't change with PPACA. But localizing state healthcare, and making it a genuine government program rather than a money funnel for corporate interests, would give the people more direct control. 

You know I'm opposed to any government control of our personal health care spending, but if we do go that direction, we can at least do it in a way that isn't a crass sellout.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 26, 2015)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Damaged Eagle said:
> ...


Lot of interesting ideas there.  Each deserves a thread of its own.  And I love that song - and the movie!


----------



## Flopper (Oct 27, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Because the poor are not all liberal Democrats particular in the rural areas of the Red States.  They buy into the trickle down theory of economics  fed to them by conservatives.  If conservatives in congress start cutting government spending the working poor depends on, they can kiss goodbye their support. Could this be why conservative congressman are not about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That assumes they vote.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 27, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I just did.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 27, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.



That's surprising given the hardship of getting to the polls for many of them.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 27, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Against whose will?  Poll after poll shows most American are not in favor cutting most socials programs.  84% of Americans don't want to see either Medicaid or Medicare reduced.  48% to 40% disapprove of a 5% cut in food stamps.  Americans are in favor of the services government provides and certainly disagree with the theory that lower taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone.
> ...


No, polls show that acceptance of social programs is wide spread, not just among the poor or those that are receiving benefits. In a 2013 Pew study on ways of reducing the deficit, respondents were asked should Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits  be protected, 78% of those with income under $30,000 said yes, 69% of those with income between 30,000 and 74,999 said yes, and 61% of those with income above 75,000 said yes.  In a separate poll, 84% of the general populations said Medicare and Medicaid should be maintained.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 27, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Voter turnout among the poor with family income less than $40,000 is only slightly less than the 66% average of all voters.
> ...


Many people are surprised to learn that the poor are interested in politics and generally have rather strong opinions.


----------



## dblack (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And even more surprised when those people don't consistently vote in their "self-interest".


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Depends on how you break it down.  The higher the income, the higher percentage voting.


----------



## LOki (Oct 27, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



More like interested in voting for those that continue to provide social programs to them as poor people.   It's like I've said for a long time.  This country has become a split between two groups.  Those that work for a living and those that vote for one.


----------



## LOki (Oct 27, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


----------



## LOki (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


----------



## LOki (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 27, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...




That always just blows me away. 

RWs voting for Repubs is like cockroaches voting for Raid. Even if one does not care about one's own self, what about their children? And the country? Its like they purposely look for what will do the most harm to America and Americans and that's the way they vote.

WTF is up with that? 

As to the OP - We've been paying 100% of bills incurred at hospitals ever since Ronnie RayGun's EMTALA (including births and abortions for illegals) and the result has been job loss, loss of employee benefits, hospitals closing, the end to trauma and burn centers. ObamaCare ends that.

It has also meant runaway costs in care and incredible profits for insurance companies. ObamaCare address that as well and we're already seeing lowering costs.

Needs work though. Let's hope the damn Repubs will stop trying so damn hard to take affordable care away from the very Americans who pay for theirs. (Yeah, I know they'll do whatever they can to harm Americans.)


----------



## dblack (Oct 27, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Well, as difficult as it might be to comprehend, some people's sense of "self-interest" extends beyond the 'bottom line'. Some of them care about concepts that might seem quaint to you - ideas like independence and liberty are a serious matter to some people, even amongst the poor. Sure, not all - maybe not even most - Tea Partiers are enlightened thusly, but if you can climb down off your high-horse for a while, you might be surprised.



> As to the OP - We've been paying 100% of bills incurred at hospitals ever since Ronnie RayGun's EMTALA (including births and abortions for illegals) and the result has been job loss, loss of employee benefits, hospitals closing, the end to trauma and burn centers. ObamaCare ends that.



We can address that mistake without doubling down on stupid. Without selling our souls to the insurance industry. True story!



> Needs work though. Let's hope the damn Repubs will stop trying so damn hard to take affordable care away from the very Americans who pay for theirs. (Yeah, I know they'll do whatever they can to harm Americans.)



The "work" it needs is to be utterly gutted


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Also according to Pew, those earning under $100,000/yr (85% of American personal tax filers) pay just 22% of personal taxes collected.

There's your 84% of the gen pop.

Conversely 15% of American filers are carrying 78% of the tax load.
Clearly as one's income rises, one's approval of those social programs decreases.

So which of these is not the same: Medicare, SS, or Medicaid?

I would posit that coupling Medicare and SS (legit insurance policies funded by the beneficiaries) with Medicaid (medical welfare funded by the gen pop) offered the latter some protection from the cold.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 27, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue.  My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.


----------



## dblack (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Probably. I'll never dispute that a prison is more efficient than a free society.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 27, 2015)

Flopper said:


> If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue.  My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.



Well, if we are going with guesses, I'd guess that states would have better control and be more efficient than Washington.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 27, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > If you transitioned from one federal program to 50 state programs, the states would have to see that those receiving subsided healthcare continue.  My guess is it would cost more because a number of functions would be duplicated in ever state.
> ...


Based on what?  The fact that some of them persistently take more from the feds than they contribute?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 27, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Based on the same thing Flopper based his guess.

That some states get more than others from Washington is often a political game of wealth redistribution ... something the feds do like it's their job.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 27, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Then we're not talking about the same thing.  I was thinking of the states that give less than they take:

2015’s States Most & Least Dependent on the Federal Government


----------



## Flopper (Oct 27, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Self-interest includes far more than any one government program. A Christian receiving welfare payments may vote Republican because of their stand on abortion. A Gun hobbits may vote Democrat because he's afraid if Republicans controlled government they would repeal Obamacare and he wouldn't able to get insurance because of his poor health.  My mother always voted for the most handsome candidate.  Self interest means different things  to different people.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 28, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


It's your view that someone voting differently than you is doing that.  Typical Liberal who thinks they know what's better for everyone else.  

I care about my children and the country.  That's why I vote the way I do.  If you don't think that's what I should be doing, tough shit.  It's worked for me for many years.  Why would I vote for someone who would take more of what I've earned to hand it to someone else for whatever cause they feel gives them compassion?


----------



## dblack (Oct 28, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Exactly. Of course I'm referring to the surprise, even disdain, expressed by welfare state advocates when the nominal beneficiaries of those programs vote for candidates who would dismantle them.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Maybe it's because it defies common sense.  The term "cutting off your nose to spite your face" springs to mind.  Although I'm inclined to think it's more a result of lack of information.

This is confirmed on message boards hundreds of times a day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 28, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Even enough to trudge 10 miles.  Each way.  In the snow.  Which is apparently what Nitwit thinks is involved in getting to the polls.  

Frankly, one of the worst things about traveling by city bus, when it's necessary to do so, is having to listen to some half-crazed semi-homeless person holding forth - loudly - on their political views.  So yeah, they have them and quite strongly.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 28, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 28, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Back in the days when government assistance went to just those that weren't employed, you could pretty well count on these people voting for whoever promised more help from the government.  However, today things have changed.  Half the people getting government handouts are working and most of the rest have had someone in the family working in last 12 months.  They are just as concerned about job growth as middle income workers are.  This means as a group, those with low income are far less predictable as how they will vote than years past.

When a candidate can't convince a voter that his or her policies will clearly be of financial benefit then the voter is likely to be swayed by other issues.  It often depends on the campaigning ability of the candidate as much as it does his policies.


----------



## LOki (Oct 28, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.



Like all those people who claim "there was nothing wrong with the old health insurance system."



Flopper said:


> Back in the days when government assistance went to just those that weren't employed, you could pretty well count on these people voting for whoever promised more help from the government.  However, today things have changed.  Half the people getting government handouts are working and most of the rest have had someone in the family working in last 12 months.  They are just as concerned about job growth as middle income workers are.  This means as a group, those with low income are far less predictable as how they will vote than years past.
> 
> When a candidate can't convince a voter that his or her policies will clearly be of financial benefit then the voter is likely to be swayed by other issues.  It often depends on the campaigning ability of the candidate as much as it does his policies.



Agreed, and it's those other issues that one-issue voters concern themselves with - abortion, guns - and ignore everything else.  This has certainly been the mainstream Republicans' problem for some time now.


----------



## dblack (Oct 28, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Right. And I'd even suggest the possibility that the people who are in the midst of poverty are the most capable of seeing the downside of state dependency, the most aware of what a twisted game it really is.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 28, 2015)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Sometimes, when the jobs go overseas and the local economy tanks, it's the only game in town.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 28, 2015)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Most people that are 100% dependent on government support, certainly wish they weren't.  However, most people aren't 100% dependent. They have part time jobs, temp jobs, or they have members of the family that work. Some are getting help from relatives, or local charities, and some have small retirement checks or child support.

Then there are those that have income that places them between the poverty line  and 133% of the poverty line.  For these people, Medicaid, free or reduced lunch programs, and other such programs are seen as supplement to their income.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Job growth in America is a function of business expansion and Private INVESTMENT. So when a low skill/low pay employee joins the eat-the-rich cabal (OWS, unions, socialists, etc.) and the result is fewer jobs, is that not cutting off their noses to spite their faces?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Just because one works with the system that's in place does not mean one is stupid enough to think it's the best possible system.
> ...



Lame Straw Man. No one has ever claimed "there was nothing wrong with the old health insurance system" but O-Care is a poorly conceived and poorly launched stab at fixing the problem.

Shoving Obamacare down the throats of Americans has not only had serious negative unintended consequences, it is running into resistance, rejection and cost-overruns at its most basic level.

Furthermore, early data shows many of those who have bought into it already had health insurance meaning many of those it was intended to help - the uninsured - are still uninsured.

Shoving Obamacare down the throats of Americans has not only had serious negative unintended consequences, it is running into resistance, rejection and cost-overruns at its most basic level.

Furthermore, early data shows many of those who have bought into it already had health insurance meaning many of those it was intended to help - the uninsured - are still uninsured.

"Nearly half of the 23 non-profit insurance plans created under Obamacare in 2011 at a cost of $2.4 billion have announced they will close by the end of the year.

Utah’s Arches Health Plan on Tuesday became the 10th health insurance co-op to announce that it was closing its doors. The move comes soon after the Obama administration’s decision on Oct. 1 to provide just 12.6 percent of the $2.87 billion that insurers were seeking to offset losses caused by unexpectedly high coverage costs."

Nearly half of Obamacare co-ops are closing


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Right. And I'd even suggest the possibility that the people who are in the midst of poverty are the most capable of seeing the downside of state dependency, the most aware of what a twisted game it really is.
> ...



Rather than throw more money - either borrowed or confiscated by our gov't - at the problems resulting from America's job losses, perhaps we should look at the gov't policies that encourage or even force companies to take such drastic action. The anti-biz POV of the very peeps who can't find work - and that of elected officials who can see only as far as their next election - is often the cause of the exodus.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

"The Co-ops Are Closing!  Dogs and Cats Living with Each Other!"

For credibility, y'all should coordinate with each other 

"Did you cover Colorado?"
"Yeah, me and three other posters."
"Better give that one a rest, then."

Either that just add it to your signatures. "The co-ops are closing...the co-ops are closing..."

Few of you understand that it's the Republicans in your state that are responsible, and that (A) alternatives will be found for the people who lost coverage and (B) the next time your state Republicans need money - oh, let's say because 24 inches of rain fell in less than 24 hours and your whole state is under water - their "co-operation" will be noted.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What does this have to do with anything we're talking about? We were discussing that fact that it's not irrational for a person to oppose, and vote against, government policies that nominally benefit them.


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)




----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)




----------



## Flopper (Oct 31, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Legal immigrants into the US are not necessarily low skilled.  30% are in management, professional or related occupations. 17% are sales and office workers. 15% work in production and transportation. 13% have occupations in construction and maintenance. The remainder, about 25% have service related occupations. 28% have bachelors degree's are higher.
Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States


----------



## Flopper (Oct 31, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Obamacare as promised has reduced the number of uninsured, 18% to 12% over the last 2 years.  The CBO estimates it will level out at about 9% in a few years. 

There are a number problems with Obamacare that can be fixed and eventually will be.

5 Ways Obamacare Can (And Should) Be Fixed


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



"So, more than half of the reduction in the number of people who are uninsured is coming from an old fashioned increase in the number of people being covered in employer health plans. You will recall that the Obamacare employer mandate was delayed during 2014 so we can hardly credit the big employer gains to that part of Obamacare. Nor, is there much evidence that the individual mandate has had a big impact on enrollment–few people signed up by the special tax deadline extension. I will suggest those employer coverage gains could just as easily have more to do with a recovering economy and employment improvement.

As Rand points out, the Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment is tepid at best—accounting for only a gain in the number of insured of 4.1 million people.

As I have pointed out before, only about 40% of those eligible for the Obamacare insurance exchanges have so far signed up with exchange enrollment far behind the original CBO enrollment estimate of the 13 million for 2015. And, the vast majority of those who have signed up are people with very low incomes who pay the lowest premiums and get the most help with their deductibles and co-pays.

The biggest Obamacare gains are coming from the Medicaid expansion. Something people get for free in the states that have expanded it under Obamacare."

Has Obamacare Really Reduced The Uninsured By 16 Million And Continued To Show Strong Growth?


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

LOki said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Very persuasive.


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


And amusing.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


In ways you can't possibly imagine.


----------



## LOki (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

LOki said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


Was that before or after he took your guns?


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



It's the basic premise of ACA that needs fixing, namely that the way to goal of health care reform should be to force everyone to buy insurance.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



No, it isn't.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Heh. "Yes, it is."


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So everyone in the U.S. has insurance?  (A) It's not true and (B) if it were, the Rightists would go ballistic.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


"So ..... " - nope, didn't say any of that, troll.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Well then your basic premise about the basic premise is incorrect.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Piss, off troll. Stow your strawmen. Suck a tailpipe. If you can't make an intelligent argument, this is the only kind of response you'll get.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And we were making real progress for a while, too...


----------



## Flopper (Oct 31, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


In 2006, before the recession 17.9% of Americans were uninsured. Today the figure is just over 12%. 11% of the children (age 0 to 18) had no insurance.  In 2013 it had fallen to 8%.  Clearly the economic recovery is not responsible for the reduction in the uninsured.

Of course, those with low income are the primary beneficiaries of Obamacare since they were the largest income group without insurance. 

Higher income groups have shown little change for two reasons. A larger percent of the higher income groups had insurance before Obamacare and secondly the cost of insurance was higher because there was little or no subsidy available.
Campaign  2008: Facts on Benefits Issues | EBRI
Health Insurance Coverage of Children 0-18


----------



## Flopper (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


There're only two ways of achieving full or near full coverage, a mandatory insurance requirement or government provided universal coverage. There wasn't sufficient support in congress for government provided universal coverage.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Right. The basic premise of ACA was that the purpose of health care reform wasn't to address health care inflation, but to get everyone on the sinking ship of "insurance". Insurance (in particular, too much insurance) was, and remains, the problem. It isn't the solution.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


If we want comprehensive healthcare available to everyone, then I don't see any alternative to insurance, either private or government.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



If... 

If we want basic health care available to the poor as a government service, there's no need for insurance. We could do it locally, with local control and local taxation, like we've done with primary education. But this belies the true purpose of ACA - to bail out the insurance industry.

It is an unspoken fact of our federal government that major policy initiatives don't go anywhere unless powerful lobbying interests make them happen. That's why nothing happened to address health care "reform" until the largest insurance companies saw an angle.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> If we want basic health care available to the poor as a government service, there's no need for insurance. We could do it locally, with local control and local taxation, like we've done with primary education.



We already have something like that in terms of Medicaid, which is handled statewide.  Drill down to the local level, and you'd have the same chaotic patchwork that you have in public education, with Texas, for example, trying to revise its textbooks to make Moses one of the Founding Fathers. 

Do you have enough faith in the honesty of your local politicians to think none of them would skim those funds?

The problem was what to do about the middle-class patient who found their cancer treatment capped at an arbitrary level and who ended up in bankruptcy, and the middle-class patient whose asthma or diabetes or MS cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and the middle-class patient who was denied insurance because of preexisting conditions.  And even those middle-class patients who didn't face anything that extreme, but who found their premiums going up and up and up because in many states there was only one insurer, and they ended up dropping their coverage because little luxuries like food and clothing and the mortgage and the utilities got in the way.

Single-payer would have solved that, but the lobbyists yelled "socialism!" and the media picked it up and too many Americans bought it, so we ended up with the PPACA.  All the Republicans seem to have been able to come up with since its implementation is some vague reference to "vouchers."

So what's the answer?  "Anything but this" is not helpful.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> So what's the answer?  "Anything but this" is not helpful.



The answer depends on the question. If the question is, "what do we do about out-of-control health care inflation", the answer is very different  from the answer to "how do we make sure everyone gets all the health care they need?"

In neither case is the answer to sign ourselves into permanent debt to insurance corporations.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > So what's the answer?  "Anything but this" is not helpful.
> ...


Not sure what you mean by "permanent debt."  You pay your premiums, you get coverage.  You switch to another carrier, you don't owe the first one anything.

As for lowering costs, that would have been great.  But the triad of pharma, insurance, and the medical community has more lobbyists than anyone else in D.C.  You can't break all of them at once, so you chip away at them a little at a time.

Doing away with insurance caps and preexisting conditions was a start.  There are other changes down the line baked into the law that nobody seems to want to read.


----------



## dblack (Oct 31, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



That's probably not the most accurate term for it. Debt is something you enter into voluntarily. This is something more like extortion. The insurance industry is, backed up by the coercive violence of government, telling ALL health care consumers, "Pay us or else!"



> You pay your premiums, you get coverage.  You switch to another carrier, you don't owe the first one anything.


You tell the insurance industry to fuck off, and you are punished by government.

This law takes away the most fundamental right a consumer has: the right to say "no" to a product or service if they don't think it's worth the asking price.



> As for lowering costs, that would have been great.  But the triad of pharma, insurance, and the medical community has more lobbyists than anyone else in D.C.  You can't break all of them at once, so you chip away at them a little at a time.



Of course we can break them. We simply stop doing business with them. That's what was beginning to happen before ACA. That's why their little game was breaking down. That's why premiums were going through the roof and sales of new policies were plummeting. That's why they chose to act. And the whores in Congress were all-too-willing to oblige.



> Doing away with insurance caps and preexisting conditions was a start.  There are other changes down the line baked into the law that nobody seems to want to read.



The rancid poison "baked into" ACA is only beginning to come to light. I'm not sure how anyone can be naive enough to believe it will be good when we recognize who the chefs were.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 31, 2015)

dblack said:


> [
> Of course we can break them. We simply stop doing business with them.



Always easy to say when you're healthy and have no dependents.

And, yes, I snipped this out of the rest, because we've been over all that a dozen times and neither of us is going to budge.  So sue me.


----------



## LOki (Nov 1, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Indeed.

If you had asked the typical ACA advocate what the quintessential Republican dick-move would look like, they'd describe legislation that guaranteed revenues to Wall Street banksters by establishing a system that attempts to made their financial services a necessity, and then making criminals out of anyone who refused to do business with those banksters.

These assholes have no business criticizing the Kochs or the Waltons.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2015)

LOki said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Shhhhhhh!!!!  (they don't wanna talk about that)


----------



## Flopper (Nov 1, 2015)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


There has to be either private or government insurance to cover catastrophic events and chronic healthcare costs.  A healthy person may live for many years with only a few hundreds dollars a year in healthcare cost.  Then a disease or accident can bring on hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost that can go on for years.


----------



## dblack (Nov 1, 2015)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Right. That's the sane way to utilize insurance. But we've been sold a different bill of goods. The insurance industry, and the regulators they've managed to manipulate, have steered us into the delusion that insurance is a way - indeed, the only way - to finance regular health care expenses. That's not sane, and it's the fundamental problem with our health care market right now.

The really frustrating thing is that markets, even those impeded with ill-considered regulation, tend to correct for such idiocy. And that was beginning to happen. The scapegoat in all the ACA propaganda was young people who were refusing to fall for the insurance sales-pitch. Younger, financially savvy people - especially the growing number of freelancers and self-employed - began to realize that using insurance to pay for routine health care was foolish, so they stopped doing it.

This is what shook up the insurance industry. Their house of cards couldn't continue to stand if the expanding base of new policy holders failed to grow, or shrank. That's what had them "ready to deal" and why they, under a ruse of "B'rer Rabbit's Briar Patch" wailing, sent in their lobbyists to DC with a reform bill for Congress to pass. PPACA is their final bulwark _against _real health care reform.


----------

