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

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

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*****

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]

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.

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*****

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.

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]

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*****

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

Ask me one question at a time.

Huh? I'm not going to type them out again. Feel free to answer them one at a time, if you prefer.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

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?

Ask me one question at a time.

Huh? I'm not going to type them out again. Feel free to answer them one at a time, if you prefer.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

Ask me one question at a time.

Huh? I'm not going to type them out again. Feel free to answer them one at a time, if you prefer.

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.

Nevermind.

 

[Arianrhod]

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]

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.

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]

^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]

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.

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?

Ask me one question at a time.

Huh? I'm not going to type them out again. Feel free to answer them one at a time, if you prefer.

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.

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]

Thank you - this is helpful!

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.

"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]

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.

Really? I can't think of one instance.

Can you provide one, and explain the mechanism by which that happened?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.)

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]

Thank you - this is helpful!

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.

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]

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.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?

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]

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.

I would recommend it.

Too bad you didn't do so before you quoted him.

Quoting an anarchist makes one an anarchist?

No. Inferring that I'm an anarchist is a suitable distraction from addressing the point of the quote.

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]

"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.

…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.

It’s very carefully worded, but unless you ignore all of history to the point where Spooner wrote that, the general tendency of people who feel oppressed by “trespassers, robbers, and murderers” is to rise up against them.

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.

I'd have every right to defend myself, or others, from aggressors and thieves—and so does government.

But what if the government is, or is perceived to be, the aggressor and thief? That is implied in Spooner’s statement.

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).

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.

But the Constitution grants the U.S. government the right to ....

Yep. Spooner is questioning the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, no doubt about that.

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]

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.