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

[Cecilie1200]

Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified".

Nope.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so.

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!"

Morality involves making the distinction between what's right/wrong or good/bad.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Huh?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Huh?

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.

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.

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!"

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.

Presumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist? That's refreshing!

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe they see it as a private investment, and not something government should be in charge of.

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.

Huh?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Huh?

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.

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.

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!"

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.

Presumes facts not in evidence.

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]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist? That's refreshing!

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!"

He confirmed that he was an anarchist. You'd look smarter if you actually read the posts in the thread.

 

[Arianrhod]

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]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist? That's refreshing!

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!"

He confirmed that he was an anarchist. You'd look smarter if you actually read the posts in the thread.

Well, since the illiterate fucknut of the board says so . . .

 

[Arianrhod]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist? That's refreshing!

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!"

He confirmed that he was an anarchist. You'd look smarter if you actually read the posts in the thread.

Well, since the illiterate fucknut of the board says so . . .

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]

... 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.

I think those questions were answered long ago

What is your answer to those questions?

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]

... 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.

I think those questions were answered long ago

What is your answer to those questions?

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.

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]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist? That's refreshing!

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!"

He confirmed that he was an anarchist.

Not really.

But it's clear that for you, if that's what you think, there can be no other option.

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]

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.

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]

... 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.

I think those questions were answered long ago

What is your answer to those questions?

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.

YOU try to justify them as part of that.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am extremely tired of hearing "we forcibly take your money and give it to others" referred to as "investing".

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]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist? That's refreshing!

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!"

He confirmed that he was an anarchist. You'd look smarter if you actually read the posts in the thread.

Well, since the illiterate fucknut of the board says so . . .

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?

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]

... 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.

I think those questions were answered long ago

What is your answer to those questions?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Googling the man you quoted might be a good place to start.