I have another quote for you

Quote :

"The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman? Or: does a woman's body belong to her, or to the government to forcibly dispose of in favor of the fetus? A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb. What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave. "

yeah, it's lots of words. Too bad.

10/22/2007 1:41:49 PM

Quote :

"If the majority of those who are well-off are still getting the stuff they want with this level of taxation"

You're assuming that the wealthy are the ones who can fund this. The tax burden always falls hardest on the middle class. The upper class are too small in numbers to contribute significantly. Even if you tax them at a ridiculous rate relative to the rest of the population, the only significance that will come of it is that people who hate wealthy people will feel vindicated.

As a middle class tax payer, I'm absolutely opposed to giving any more money to uncle sam than I absolutely have to, and I already believe that I give too much, only to be wasted on worthless efforts. If people can't pull their own weight, that sucks for them. I don't like legislating charity.

If a lot of people believe that such a program is morally necessary and right, then there are a lot of causes and foundations that they can donate to. The government needs to stay out of legislating charity.

10/22/2007 1:45:27 PM

^^ If that's legally sustainable, then there are probably a good handful of women who are serving sentences for killing their unborn babies, but according to that, they have the right to do this. I'm sure the fathers of those babies don't feel that way.

Does the woman have the right to kill what the father is part-owner of, if it's violating her rights?

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2007 1:47:17 PM

^^^ while there are a lot of logical and well-thought-out arguments for keeping abortion legal, that's a fucking terrible one.

10/22/2007 1:50:28 PM

^well said.

Of all the policies the govt has, the one that effects me most and effects my ablility to create wealth for myself are taxes.

I give money to the humane society. I feel strongly about their cause and feel animals are dependant and need helping. To me its a worthy cause. During Katrina, thats where I sent my money. Perhaps you could send your money to a cause you believe in, instead of trying to spend mine on a cause you believe in.

10/22/2007 1:51:27 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps you could send your money to a cause you believe in, instead of trying to spend mine on a cause you believe in."

That is the problem.

Most people are shortsighted and greedy. If the gov. didn't fund any social programs, our country would be in worse shape. People seem to feel that if people were forced to "fend for themselves" or something like that, all the "undesirables" would eventually go away.

Realistically, our society and our economy MANDATES poor people. Keeping these poor people from being too poor or disgruntled helps to keep crime down, and makes a plebeian uprising much less likely. The fact our poor people can own cars and TVs keeps them relatively content with their poor lives. On top of this, power is exponentially correlated to money, not linearly, which encourages corruption if unchecked.

This seems cruel, but it's necessary until we find a way to live without money. Within the current system, motivated people can still rise up probably easier than in the no-gov-charity system you envision, but the people that don't rise up are less likely to flip out.

If we went back to a 1900s era type of tax system, society would eventually fracture by class, creating a very unstable social and political system.

10/22/2007 2:03:35 PM

Quote :

"Realistically, our society and our economy MANDATES poor people. Keeping these poor people from being too poor or disgruntled helps to keep crime down, and makes a plebeian uprising much less likely."

I completely agree with this and is why for the most part support the current status quo on social programs. I do think some change is needed b.c the current system does not encourage people to step up and support themselves when they can instead live on the system and get "raises" by cranking out more worthless children who probabilistically will be future drains on the system or in jail.

Quote :

"TVs keeps them relatively content with their poor lives"

I think my grandma was right when she called the TV the "idiot box." TV and drugs is what sedates the lower class population into accepting their mundane lives. Hence all the retarted fucking shows on TV like "American Idol", "Celebrity Ice Skating", "Big Brother", and "Everybody loves Raymond"

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 2:08 PM. Reason : a]

10/22/2007 2:05:56 PM

^ I agree, there's a lot of waste in our current system. But I don't think going to an only-private system and hoping things work out would work.

10/22/2007 2:07:17 PM

I agree that a free-for-all type of system is definitely not going to work, but I don't think we need to have MORE government involvement in our lives, and definitely not a government healthcare system. Aside from the financial burden on the middle class, the people that run our government do not have the requisite intelligence, ability, or work ethic to get a healthcare system running successfully.

10/22/2007 2:15:04 PM

I will admit that if I am going to be taxed anyway; I'd rather my money going to helping the poor than contracts for Haliburton and Bush/Cheney's oil buddies, paying for mercenaries to shoot Iraqi civilians and dropping bombs in a conflict we should never have been involved with, or building big ass multi-million dollar bridges in the middle of nowhere in Alaska.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : s]

10/22/2007 2:24:12 PM

Quote :

"I agree that a free-for-all type of system is definitely not going to work, but I don't think we need to have MORE government involvement in our lives, and definitely not a government healthcare system. Aside from the financial burden on the middle class, the people that run our government do not have the requisite intelligence, ability, or work ethic to get a healthcare system running successfully. "

Those are 2 different issues though. The US geographically is one of the biggest countries in the world. It extremely unlikely that a single national gov. can accurately create and implement policy for the entire country.

Each of the 50 states (particularly the middle ones) would barely be able to support themselves if they were given all the powers of the federal gov., because of monetary issues. Plus, if we wanted to maintain the ridiculous amounts of military spending now, the state gov. would give most of their tax base to the national gov. for this purpose. Personally, if the US were divided in to separate regions that reported to one national leader, or switched to a type of parliamentary system, governing could be made more efficient.

If our gov. stays like it is with 2 mostly similar main parties deadlocking each other for trite political reasons, then I think 2 things are going to happen: corporations are going to seize more power for themselves, and other countries are going to take our spot as a super power. Both of these things are already in the works, and we have no hints of action or solution on our part on the horizon.

10/22/2007 2:25:04 PM

I think it would be great to decrease federal income tax rates; with the possibility of allowing an increase in state level income tax. Eliminating federal social programs and letting the states take responsibility to meet the individual needs of their local populace. If nothing else this would cut down on the bloated bureaucracy since social services would be reduced to 50 smaller organizations.

Ron Paul 2008!!!

10/22/2007 2:31:08 PM

I definitely support states' rights.

10/22/2007 2:31:13 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Realistically, our society and our economy MANDATES poor people. Keeping these poor people from being too poor or disgruntled helps to keep crime down, and makes a plebeian uprising much less likely." I completely agree with this and is why for the most part support the current status quo on social programs. I do think some change is needed b.c the current system does not encourage people to step up and support themselves when they can instead live on the system and get "raises" by cranking out more worthless children who probabilistically will be future drains on the system or in jail"

Moron, great point. We finally agree on something.

I dont think we should not have a safety net, however our net have become a hammock. You limit the amount and time benefits are given. Pay half of what min wage is, only pay for ONE child, have a ALDI like grocery store for food stamps. I think you do these things, then you see people WANTING to get off the system.

10/22/2007 2:50:46 PM

Quote :

"however our net have become a hammock"

that is an awesome quote

10/22/2007 3:09:51 PM

geez, I got a minute at work and had time to reread my last post. Look at the grammer in that thing. I am embarrassed. Double negatives, wrong tense. Its a wonder I graduated.

10/22/2007 3:20:07 PM

Quote :

"bc mc, whose morals are we using to determine what programs to fund? Yours?"

No, not mine actually. We'd use morals that we could agree on, which is how we've been running the ship for a while now. We'd use positions that are supportable from a variety of backgrounds, not just a specific one. This is why I have no problem with religious doctrines and their consequences as long as religion is an opt-in only endeavor. For people who do not share the fundamental assumptions of certain religious systems, some subset of the doctrines/conclusions/imperatives of those religious systems will not be agreeable. Unless these doctrines/conclusions/imperatives can be argued to from a standpoint that appeals to a broader base of assumptions, they should be opt-in only.

A brief example is something like believing medicine of any type is immoral. If you believe this as a consequence of your religion then fine, feel free to do so yourself. You can opt-into this behavior. But, seeing as how those not sharing that particular set of religious assumptions can't be convinced those actions are right independent of those unverifiable assumptions, these doctrines/imperatives should not be codified into law.

Quote :

"To keep on punishing people who are productive and do the right things to reward people who habitually make poor decisions is not helpful to ANYONE."

What poor decisions did an impoverished or neglected child make?

Quote :

"You're assuming that the wealthy are the ones who can fund this. The tax burden always falls hardest on the middle class. The upper class are too small in numbers to contribute significantly. Even if you tax them at a ridiculous rate relative to the rest of the population, the only significance that will come of it is that people who hate wealthy people will feel vindicated."

This is highly irrelevant. The taxation could be scaled a different way. Even if there was no way to do this other than to tax the middle class the heaviest, the question becomes: can the middle class get by or not? Oh no, a suburbanite can't afford a second home and a yacht?? That's worth a bunch of children going without medical care, for sure!

Quote :

"As a middle class tax payer, I'm absolutely opposed to giving any more money to uncle sam than I absolutely have to, and I already believe that I give too much, only to be wasted on worthless efforts. If people can't pull their own weight, that sucks for them. I don't like legislating charity. "

I don't like punishing children for circumstances they cannot control, for the sake of suburbanites that crave McMansions and SUVs. If you have to downgrade to a Toyota four-door so that children can get medical care, that's a trade I'm willing to make. If I have to downgrade from a Toyota four-door to a bike, then fine too.

What weight should the children be pulling, anyway? What exactly are they doing wrong, such that they don't deserve support if there is none?

Quote :

"If a lot of people believe that such a program is morally necessary and right, then there are a lot of causes and foundations that they can donate to. The government needs to stay out of legislating charity."

Sure there are. However, if there are people going without, then these people must be accounted for.

Quote :

"Of all the policies the govt has, the one that effects me most and effects my ablility to create wealth for myself are taxes."

Your desires are less important than other peoples' needs (in the case where those other people are those who CANNOT care for themselves at all, you have no leg to stand on in objecting to this unless you're a full-blown sociopath).

Quote :

"I give money to the humane society. I feel strongly about their cause and feel animals are dependant and need helping. To me its a worthy cause. During Katrina, thats where I sent my money. Perhaps you could send your money to a cause you believe in, instead of trying to spend mine on a cause you believe in."

If I had any spare money, it certainly wouldn't be much. What recourse is there, then, when I can perceive a need (and even a moral imperative), but cannot personally make an impact? This is precisely what legislation is for --- for ensuring that we have a society worth living in, even if the people in it refuse to make it possible.

(seriously, animals? did it not cross your mind that some human children might have been affected as a result of Katrina?)

Quote :

"Most people are shortsighted and greedy. If the gov. didn't fund any social programs, our country would be in worse shape. People seem to feel that if people were forced to "fend for themselves" or something like that, all the "undesirables" would eventually go away."

We're quite the Christian nation, aren't we? What was it Jesus said, again ... was it "fend for yourself --- poor people deserve everything they get"? No I think it was "sell all your belongings and distribute the earnings amongst the poor." Meh, whatever, who the fuck listens to that guy anyway *opens up Paul's epistles*

Quote :

"I think my grandma was right when she called the TV the "idiot box." TV and drugs is what sedates the lower class population into accepting their mundane lives. Hence all the retarted fucking shows on TV like "American Idol", "Celebrity Ice Skating", "Big Brother", and "Everybody loves Raymond""

TAKE IT BACK

Quote :

"I dont think we should not have a safety net, however our net have become a hammock. You limit the amount and time benefits are given. Pay half of what min wage is, only pay for ONE child, have a ALDI like grocery store for food stamps. I think you do these things, then you see people WANTING to get off the system"

The hammock thing is a great quote, and I agree. People shouldn't be rewarded for shirking their responsibilities, and this is not what I've been arguing for. I disagree, however, in the case of only funding one child -- should the rest go without, if the parents are irresponsible? Somebody has to pick up the slack, and I disagree that it should be the child.

Quote :

"geez, I got a minute at work and had time to reread my last post. Look at the grammer in that thing. I am embarrassed. Double negatives, wrong tense. Its a wonder I graduated."

I don't think it much matters -- have you noticed where you're posting?

10/22/2007 4:34:26 PM

Quote :

"McMakesMeHard"

10/22/2007 4:39:56 PM

Quote :

"for the sake of suburbanites that crave McMansions and SUVs"

after working my ass off for a degree and getting a good job i should be able to get my McMansion and SUV. Not subsidize other peoples parenting costs. If they can not afford to take care of their children (i.e health insurance, shelter, food, clothing) than they should not be parents or be forced to hand over their children to social services. Poor people should not be able to pump out 2^5 children expecting everyone else in our society to subsidize and foot the cost of their new "bundle of joy"

Maybe this money would be better off subsidizing the middle and upper class parents to have more children who will be more likely to benefit society as adults.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : l]

10/22/2007 4:57:17 PM

Quote :

"after working my ass off for a degree and getting a good job i should be able to get my McMansion and SUV. Not subsidize other peoples parenting costs. If they can not afford to take care of their children (i.e health insurance, shelter, food, clothing) than they should not be parents or be forced to hand over their children to social services."

I certainly agree about handing their children over to social services in some cases -- however then, they still have to be accounted and paid for. We're back at square one about who still has to foot the bill, and the answer is always going to be "the tax-payer" in these cases.

While you might deserve your McMansion and SUV, your desires still do not override somebody else's needs.

10/22/2007 5:00:28 PM

If the homeless guy walking around hillsbourgh has the need for food after not eating for 3 days, does his need justify him breaking into my car stealing my car stereo for $$$ override my desire to have bumpin tunes driving down the street.

10/22/2007 5:03:14 PM

mcdanger, again you are talking of people making sacrifices for other people's responsiblities. Yes the kid doesnt make a decision, however he will be born into that BS, and dont be surprised if that is where they stay. My stepsister is a counselor for wake county schools. A 5th grader told her she wants to collect a check like her mommy. I think we have problems in this country.

This bill will provide taxpayer funded healthcare to adults and children, and to those who already HAVE healthcare. THAT is the problem. Poor kids have medicaid. What we need to do is take away the incentive for the poor to keep having kids for income. Because for most responsiblity and hardwork arent in the vocab.

If someone working needs TEMP assistance then they should be helped, but the funds are strapped by the cancers of society. Continuing to push resources into the cancer will eventually kill the host. Actually there is a very good parallel between the welfare state and cancer.

Like ive stated earlier, you grandfather the current people and start new rules. Only pay for ONE. Thats it. Cant pay for it? Orphanage. It wont take long before some start to consider some consequences.

10/22/2007 5:08:23 PM

Quote :

"We're back at square one about who still has to foot the bill, and the answer is always going to be "the tax-payer" in these cases. While you might deserve your McMansion and SUV, your desires still do not override somebody else's needs. "

No, what it does is break the cycle.

If someone would rather spend thier money that they worked for on things they want, I have no problem with that.....however, when those same people spend their money on things they want but then expect taxpayers to pay for things they need... there is the problem.

Someone wants to have 10 kids, fine. As long as they pay for them. But dont drive around a navigator and expect people to pay for your health ins.

10/22/2007 5:11:58 PM

Quote :

"does his need justify him breaking into my car stealing my car stereo for $$$ override my desire to have bumpin tunes driving down the street."

no, his need doesnt justify him committing a crime.

pretty sure mcdanger never made a claim like that.

10/22/2007 5:16:06 PM

Quote :

"mcdanger, again you are talking of people making sacrifices for other people's responsiblities."

Absolutely. In the cases where "sacrifices" are "I have to buy a house that's 4000 instead of 5000 square feet" and other people's responsibilities failing to be met means "a kid doesn't get health care".

Quote :

"Yes the kid doesnt make a decision, however he will be born into that BS, and dont be surprised if that is where they stay. My stepsister is a counselor for wake county schools. A 5th grader told her she wants to collect a check like her mommy. I think we have problems in this country."

Yeah, fuck that kid! She doesn't deserve health care at all. Is this really how you think?

Quote :

"This bill will provide taxpayer funded healthcare to adults and children, and to those who already HAVE healthcare. THAT is the problem. Poor kids have medicaid. What we need to do is take away the incentive for the poor to keep having kids for income. Because for most responsiblity and hardwork arent in the vocab."

I agree with the majority of how this is motivated. People should work, and people should have incentives to work (read: there shouldn't be incentives NOT to meet your responsibilities). I just don't agree that a kid should ever have to go hungry or without care due to some adult's fuck up -- especially because you want more and more toys.

Quote :

"Like ive stated earlier, you grandfather the current people and start new rules. Only pay for ONE. Thats it. Cant pay for it? Orphanage. It wont take long before some start to consider some consequences."

Somebody still has to pay for the kid.

10/22/2007 5:21:41 PM

Quote :

"Actually there is a very good parallel between the welfare state and cancer."

True

btw kids have survived for 1000's years w/o health insurance. No where in the declaration of independance does it state that you have the right to freedom and happiness as well as health insurance.

10/22/2007 6:03:00 PM

Quote :

"Because even humane socities have people like you, who are clearly inhumane? If we have to ensure that children get care federally, then why is it a big deal?"

Because the federal government can't even ensure that nuclear warheads are secured properly, what the hell makes you think they can ensure that children are cared for or that such care is distributed to the right people or efficiently?

Quote :

"providing free health-care to children whose parents won't provide for them ensures that the kids at least get medical treatment. How is that a bad thing? Because it touches your wallet? Really? "

Because it takes away from my ability to provide for my family.

Quote :

"Stop being ridiculous. "

How am I being ridiculous, either you're going to take other people's money to pay doctors or you're going to enslave the doctors, either way you're stealing.

Quote :

"People like you and me, who are doing just fine and can provide for basic needs already."

Define what parts of health care are "basic needs" because I guarantee we have two very different definitions.

Quote :

"Of course I understand this. The money will come from people like you, like it already does. "

Why should it? Why should I pay for the mistakes of other people?

Quote :

"And if her insurance were taken care of through a public program, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with."

Equally if I weren't paying for other people's healthcare, the problem wouldn't exist either, and I like that idea better.

Quote :

"But here's some advice: stop paying for internet access, and prepare your own food more often instead of going out. Perhaps share a car, or perhaps she can pick up a job (if she doesn't have one) or two (if she has one already). You know, Starbucks provides health-care for their employees, maybe she can serve me coffee for a living? I don't fucking know -- the point is, you guys have options, some of which involve going without luxuries. If you have to give up luxuries to give a child basic necessities, then so be it."

And here begins the assuming that just because I believe people should be left to care for themselves that I must be rich or pissing away money. The internet is the only luxury we seriously pay for. We feed 2 people on less than $300 per month (that's less than $10/day, we aint eating out). We share a car, we only have one, and it's used not new, and no we're not making any payments on it, and she already had a job, and a pre-existing medical condition which keeps her from working a second job. Oh, and we also moved into a smaller, cheaper apartment so that we could walk to work as opposed to drive to save money on gas. So fuck your assumptions about me and my life all I want is to not have to pay for someone elses god damn medical care so that I can afford some for her.

I'll deal with the rest later, but it really pisses me off when people assume that my political views mean I'm some rich kid who doesn't know crap. I've supported 2 people on $8/hr and I've begged and scraped from people when things have gotten tough. I've gone without and I've made plenty of sacrifices. I've had to ask medical companies to provide us with free or cheap medication because we can't afford the $600/month the prescription otherwise and I've had to swallow my pride and take some charity just to get a checkup. And I didn't grow up rich either. I don't say this to brag, I don't say it to claim that I've had it worse than anyone, I've actually been pretty damn lucky at times, but I say it to establish that I've been down, and I know what it means to drag oneself up one fist at a time.

10/22/2007 6:09:55 PM

Do you live in charlotte and have your screenname as your license tag by chance?

10/22/2007 6:44:39 PM

Quote :

"Because the federal government can't even ensure that nuclear warheads are secured properly, what the hell makes you think they can ensure that children are cared for or that such care is distributed to the right people or efficiently?"

This is separate from whether something should be done or not. Assuming a poor job will be done ahead of time is not an argument.

By the way, if the government can't do anything right, why is a military justified?

Quote :

"Because it takes away from my ability to provide for my family."

If you're that bad off, you should stop paying for internet access. Also, if there were such a system, you would be the type of person eligible for need (if it is truly the case). Not sure what this argument addresses other than "I might not be able to buy totally sweet things."

Quote :

"How am I being ridiculous, either you're going to take other people's money to pay doctors or you're going to enslave the doctors, either way you're stealing."

Characterizing taxation as stealing is ridiculous. There are things we need to pay for collectively. Get over it. It's not theft.

Quote :

"Define what parts of health care are "basic needs" because I guarantee we have two very different definitions."

How does "keeping you alive and healthy" sound for a start?

Quote :

" Why should it? Why should I pay for the mistakes of other people?"

Because the mistakes of other people can, in some cases, be sentient life forms. I shouldn't have to explain to you why a child shouldn't have to go uncared for.

Quote :

"Equally if I weren't paying for other people's healthcare, the problem wouldn't exist either, and I like that idea better."

How about if we weren't paying for a needless war, bridges in Alaska, and countless other cases of wasteful spending? We could have both then. This is a case where the spending is justified, and you could have your cake and eat it too. The fact that you have two options in front of you that are functionally equivalent for you and you chose the option that screws other people means you fail at ethics, game theory, and at being a decent human being.

Quote :

"And here begins the assuming that just because I believe people should be left to care for themselves that I must be rich or pissing away money."

And here begins the predictable "I am really too poor to get by, but I hold fast to my conservative ideals because I have the courage to stand up for THE TRUTH." Haha.

Quote :

"The internet is the only luxury we seriously pay for."

Then stop paying for it if you're so bad off. That's some decent savings right there.

Quote :

"We feed 2 people on less than $300 per month (that's less than $10/day, we aint eating out). We share a car, we only have one, and it's used not new, and no we're not making any payments on it, and she already had a job, and a pre-existing medical condition which keeps her from working a second job. Oh, and we also moved into a smaller, cheaper apartment so that we could walk to work as opposed to drive to save money on gas. So fuck your assumptions about me and my life all I want is to not have to pay for someone elses god damn medical care so that I can afford some for her."

How much of the taxes you pay goes towards somebody else's medical care, exactly? I doubt it even approaches something you could use to pay for your wife's medical care (it probably hovers at around epsilon). It's good you guys are cutting costs, because it sounds like you can't afford more than that. I don't understand how two reasonably educated people can't scrape by better than you two -- do you work at a Gamestop or something? If so, I suggest looking for better employment, because it sounds like you are smart enough to do something other than what you're doing. If not, move to a cheaper part of the country. If you're making THAT little between the both of you, you have to do what it takes. Isn't that what you'd tell somebody else?

You paying for somebody else's medical care has nothing to do with your financial situation in the least. Eliminating all that spending from the government probably wouldn't visibly increase the size of your paycheck at all.

By the way, if life is so hard and you barely make any money (and you're not willing to learn a more marketable skill so that you can make more money -- again, you SEEM smart, why can't you do this?), why don't you pick up a second or third job? You have the money to blow on internet and the time to blow sitting around and playing it. Why am I supposed to take your sob story at face value?

In short: LOL.

Quote :

"I'll deal with the rest later, but it really pisses me off when people assume that my political views mean I'm some rich kid who doesn't know crap. I've supported 2 people on $8/hr and I've begged and scraped from people when things have gotten tough. I've gone without and I've made plenty of sacrifices. I've had to ask medical companies to provide us with free or cheap medication because we can't afford the $600/month the prescription otherwise and I've had to swallow my pride and take some charity just to get a checkup. And I didn't grow up rich either. I don't say this to brag, I don't say it to claim that I've had it worse than anyone, I've actually been pretty damn lucky at times, but I say it to establish that I've been down, and I know what it means to drag oneself up one fist at a time."

Yes, yes, we know you're the rough-and-tough conservative who bravely sticks by his ideals in times of trial like a True American (tm).

You supported two people on $8/hr? Is that you and one other person, or you, another, and a child? I have no idea how to hack through this situation, but it seems like an actual case for health-care than against it, seeing as how eliminating all of the taxes taken from your check that goes towards others' health-care sums to practically nothing.

So really, it's anecdotal evidence, but at least it's anecdotal evidence in my corner rather than yours (even though it involves you, ironically enough).

10/22/2007 7:13:46 PM

I wonder how humans ever got by before advances in science provided us with the luxury of health care...

10/22/2007 8:58:26 PM

They usually suffered and died.

Now what, if anything, is your point?

10/22/2007 9:05:24 PM

^ yep.

[/thread]

10/22/2007 9:27:34 PM

worst /thread ever

10/22/2007 9:32:39 PM

So people who don't have the ability or option to care for themselves should die, so that other people can enjoy an even more decadent lifestyle? Wow.

Between that and BobbyDigital's suggestion that health care is a luxury (and thus the same as buying an iPod or a yacht), this thread has taken a pretty depressing turn. Basic care is NOT the same as having a marginal amount of extra money in your already sufficiently large bank account.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 10:15:38 PM

Quote :

"This is separate from whether something should be done or not. Assuming a poor job will be done ahead of time is not an argument."

Just because something should be done, doesn't mean it should be forced by law and gun.

Quote :

"If you're that bad off, you should stop paying for internet access. Also, if there were such a system, you would be the type of person eligible for need (if it is truly the case). Not sure what this argument addresses other than "I might not be able to buy totally sweet things.""

Yes, everyone should be equally miserable right? If everyone can't have luxuries, no one should have them.

Quote :

"Characterizing taxation as stealing is ridiculous. There are things we need to pay for collectively. Get over it. It's not theft. "

Taxation is legalized theft. I didn't volunteer my money to pay for medicaid, I didn't even volunteer my money to pay for the war (since you keep harping on that). But I pay for it anyway, just like you do. Do you not feel the spending on the war is theft from your pocket? Why then is it unreasonable to think that the government spending my money on programs I don't support is theft?

Quote :

"How does "keeping you alive and healthy" sound for a start?"

To what end? Teri Schiavo? Should she have been kept alive indefinately at tax payer expense? How about my wife, who has a neurological issue, she can function fairly normaly without medication, but a good $600/month in medicines makes her much healthier, should that be on the tax payers dime? How about the poor mother without any sort of budgeting sense, so she eats fast food and smokes all day, should it be the tax payer's responsibility to keep her alive and healthy? Again, define basic health care.

Quote :

"Because the mistakes of other people can, in some cases, be sentient life forms. I shouldn't have to explain to you why a child shouldn't have to go uncared for."

The parents should care for them. And if they aren't cared for, arrest the parents for negligence, put them in jail and force them to work to pay for themselves and their kids.

Quote :

"How about if we weren't paying for a needless war, bridges in Alaska, and countless other cases of wasteful spending? We could have both then. This is a case where the spending is justified, and you could have your cake and eat it too. The fact that you have two options in front of you that are functionally equivalent for you and you chose the option that screws other people means you fail at ethics, game theory, and at being a decent human being."

The problem is, people aren't asking me to give up building bridges in alaska and wars in other countries, they want MORE tax money ON TOP of what I already pay. Fuck that. With the billions the government brings in each year, they can't seriously help some poor people without comming to me for more money? How about we fire some politicians and use their salary to help the poor. Better yet, let's make the poor our politicians, just as much money being spent on them, but at least we know it's going to the right people.

Quote :

"Then stop paying for it if you're so bad off. That's some decent savings right there."

If my needs are provided for, why should I surrender my luxuries? I'm not asking for social services, so why don't I deserve to use my money towards luxuries? Just because someone can't budget for themselves?

Quote :

"How much of the taxes you pay goes towards somebody else's medical care, exactly? I doubt it even approaches something you could use to pay for your wife's medical care (it probably hovers at around epsilon)."

Rought guess, probably about $60-80/ month.

Quote :

"It's good you guys are cutting costs, because it sounds like you can't afford more than that. I don't understand how two reasonably educated people can't scrape by better than you two -- do you work at a Gamestop or something? If so, I suggest looking for better employment, because it sounds like you are smart enough to do something other than what you're doing. If not, move to a cheaper part of the country. If you're making THAT little between the both of you, you have to do what it takes. Isn't that what you'd tell somebody else? You paying for somebody else's medical care has nothing to do with your financial situation in the least. Eliminating all that spending from the government probably wouldn't visibly increase the size of your paycheck at all. By the way, if life is so hard and you barely make any money (and you're not willing to learn a more marketable skill so that you can make more money -- again, you SEEM smart, why can't you do this?), why don't you pick up a second or third job? You have the money to blow on internet and the time to blow sitting around and playing it. Why am I supposed to take your sob story at face value? "

You know what man, fuck you. Seriously fuck you. I work 40 hours+ a week, and attend school 1 day a week. I already moved once to a cheaper area so that I could afford to get by. I spend the rest of my money on paying off debts from when I was worse off and stuffing the rest into SAVINGS so that when I retire, I dont' have to rely on assholes like you to pay for my retirement. Also savings to repair the piece of shit car, and to pay for those medical emergencies that pop up from time to time (like a recent $400 ER visit). So fuck you, you god damn self rightous son of a bitch. I take my own god damn advice. The fucking point behind my "sob story" was that everything I say that people should do to help themselves out of a shitty situation is stuff I've fucking done. I'm not complaining, and I dont think I'm bad off now. I'm mostly content, just sick of listening to people tell me that someone in my situation can't afford to live without taking money from my paychecks. FUCK YOU.

I'm done with you. Fuck it. Just because you can't imagine living on a low wage doesn't mean it can't be done or that it can't be done with relative comfort. You don't have to believe me, I don't really fucking care. I'm proof that it can be done. It's not always easy, it's not always fair, but then life rarely fucking is.

10/22/2007 10:41:58 PM

Quote :

"The parents should care for them. And if they aren't cared for, arrest the parents for negligence, put them in jail and force them to work to pay for themselves and their kids."

do you realize how many people we'd be putting in jail? do you realize how much less expensive it would be to just have a universal health care system that is paid for by everyone through a progressive tax?

10/22/2007 10:46:01 PM

Yeah, but free healthcare doesn't do anything to attempt to change the behavior. Forced labor for negligence to your child should at least make some people think twice.

10/22/2007 10:55:11 PM

The gov collects enough taxes as it is to do what it needs. It just needs to reallocate and account for it better.

10/22/2007 10:57:15 PM

Quote :

"Just because something should be done, doesn't mean it should be forced by law and gun."

And if it won't be done otherwise, then what? Sit back and shrug, saying "oh well -- we wanted people to get coverage, but really SUVs and flat screens are more important"?

Quote :

"Yes, everyone should be equally miserable right? If everyone can't have luxuries, no one should have them."

Wrong, actually --- but I wouldn't expect you to correctly expand an argument by this point, so whatever. What did you major in?

Quote :

"Taxation is legalized theft. I didn't volunteer my money to pay for medicaid, I didn't even volunteer my money to pay for the war (since you keep harping on that). But I pay for it anyway, just like you do. Do you not feel the spending on the war is theft from your pocket? Why then is it unreasonable to think that the government spending my money on programs I don't support is theft?"

Of course it's not fucking theft. As a society, we pay for shit that not everybody agrees with. That doesn't make it theft. God damn, I'm starting to see why you're swinging $8 an hour jobs.

Quote :

"To what end? Teri Schiavo? Should she have been kept alive indefinately at tax payer expense? How about my wife, who has a neurological issue, she can function fairly normaly without medication, but a good $600/month in medicines makes her much healthier, should that be on the tax payers dime? How about the poor mother without any sort of budgeting sense, so she eats fast food and smokes all day, should it be the tax payer's responsibility to keep her alive and healthy? Again, define basic health care."

Given that Schiavo was brain dead, I think it was a fair judgment to pull the plug. She was dead in all the ways that matter to a human being; human beings are not just a body, they're a functioning brain as well.

If your wife can't afford her medication then yes, it should be on the tax payers' dime.

No, your mother should not.

Can you see the difference or do I need to hold your hand? Nothing about your previous reasoning has given me the confidence that you can correctly step through this yourself, but I'll let you try.

Quote :

"The parents should care for them. And if they aren't cared for, arrest the parents for negligence, put them in jail and force them to work to pay for themselves and their kids. "

sarijoul made this point better than I was going to. But remember sarijoul, it's not about being efficient. It's not about solving problems. It's about poetic justice, righteous indignation, and about punishing and judging people as harshly as we can.

Look at you, silly LIEberal with your thoughts and your reasons. Less expensive -- let the efficiency of the program be damned! People need to learn a lesson about good, down-home conservative values!

Quote :

"The problem is, people aren't asking me to give up building bridges in alaska and wars in other countries, they want MORE tax money ON TOP of what I already pay. Fuck that. With the billions the government brings in each year, they can't seriously help some poor people without comming to me for more money? How about we fire some politicians and use their salary to help the poor. Better yet, let's make the poor our politicians, just as much money being spent on them, but at least we know it's going to the right people."

Agreed -- we should be able to help poor people without more taxes. What about my arguments made you think otherwise? Oh, that's right, you flew off the handle with unwarranted assumptions (yet again).

Quote :

"If my needs are provided for, why should I surrender my luxuries? I'm not asking for social services, so why don't I deserve to use my money towards luxuries? Just because someone can't budget for themselves?"

Given your earlier example of your OWN situation, you were unable to provide basic care for your "family" (you and your wife, I guess). In such a case, care is certainly warranted.

Quote :

"Rought guess, probably about $60-80/ month."

Even if this were true, you could get rid of internet service and recoup the majority of those costs.

Quote :

"You know what man, fuck you. Seriously fuck you. I work 40 hours+ a week, and attend school 1 day a week. I already moved once to a cheaper area so that I could afford to get by."

Cry me a river, liberal. Didn't your parents teach you how to really work?

Quote :

"I spend the rest of my money on paying off debts from when I was worse off and stuffing the rest into SAVINGS so that when I retire, I dont' have to rely on assholes like you to pay for my retirement."

So you're living harder than you have to because you're also putting money into savings? This story is riddled with more contradictions and absurdities than I could have hoped for. If you're really in such a tough spot, you shouldn't be saving anything -- you should be trying to provide for your wife (who you claimed you could not provide for -- how much do you put into savings a month? couple that with internet, and how much more could you be saving?). Something doesn't add up here, but if you're really this stupid, I can see how you got into this situation.

Quote :

"I take my own god damn advice."

Ahaha you should probably start taking somebody else's too if you're only making 8 bucks and hour and can't even provide for your wife. You're like the failure of the conservative ideal rolled into one disgruntled little libertarian.

Quote :

"I'm not complaining, and I dont think I'm bad off now. I'm mostly content, just sick of listening to people tell me that someone in my situation can't afford to live without taking money from my paychecks. FUCK YOU. "

Really? Because all I've heard is complaining from you.

You should consider that not everybody has the option to work out of debt just because you did. One-case inductions aren't exactly the hallmark of sound reasoning.

Quote :

"I'm done with you. Fuck it. Just because you can't imagine living on a low wage doesn't mean it can't be done or that it can't be done with relative comfort. You don't have to believe me, I don't really fucking care. I'm proof that it can be done. It's not always easy, it's not always fair, but then life rarely fucking is."

I probably live on a much lower wage than you do, but this isn't exactly a competition. The reason why I'm on a lower wage than you isn't because I was a dumb ass about it.

10/22/2007 11:05:13 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, but free healthcare doesn't do anything to attempt to change the behavior. Forced labor for negligence to your child should at least make some people think twice. "

YEAH! and we should totally instate a "death penalty" where we'll kill anyone who is convicted of murder. that way, people think twice before they murder someone! and eventually there will be no more murders!




good god, man. you know that's a totally ridiculous notion. you're not going to change the fact that people will continue have kids they can't always afford, and no matter how much of a total badass YOU are and how hard YOU work, not everyone has the same means/determination/opportunities/whatever to pull themselves out of poverty. why are you so adamant about hassling the parents for creating the situation instead of caring about the welfare of the children who had no choice in the matter?

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ,]

10/22/2007 11:13:39 PM

10/23/2007 12:38:14 AM

Quote :

"It appears that secularism is your faith and academics and scientists are your clergy."

hooksaw to McDanger

Quote :

"This is actually laughably far from the truth. But, I'm curious -- can you even back up this claim with a cogent argument?"

McDanger

I can confirm that you are hate-filled and anti-religious schizo who once offered the world this trinket: "Show me a god who can stand up to rational inquiry, and you will have shown me a god worthy of worship. I'll be the first in line."

God is not worthy of McDanger? Is that your thesis?

"Christianity -- man's immortal blunder"

Quote :

"We’ll begin with the discussion of Christianity’s wholesale rejection of reality, of rationality, of science, and it’s replacement of reality with its own imaginary constructions. In essence, Christianity takes nature and vilifies it. In demonizing nature, reason, natural science, and normal modes of causal thinking, it ensures that its victims will stay ensnared. A good question would be, why would anybody do this? Nietzsche makes the point that Christianity is a religion aimed at destroying the strong, created by the weak. It is a system of thought developed by life in decline; fearing independence, intelligence, and greatness, it seeks to suck the vitality from people with these qualities by diagnosing them with “sin”."

Quote :

"I'd argue that religion such as Christianity is nihilism in itself. Christianity saps and drains value and purpose from this life with promise of the life to come. As Nietzsche would argue, it "shifts the center of gravity" of life into a place past life, a place which consciousness cannot experience."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=412249&page=1

"Christophobe Protests Christmas; Sets Self On Fire"

Quote :

"Bashing the Catholic Church is like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't see how it reinforces your point -- horrific ideologies get treated by sensible people as horrific ideologies."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=451858&page=1

"Jews dont like christmas in Wahington [sic] Airport"

Quote :

"Some people are way too fucking sensitive. If you want a menorah, you're free to put one up in your own house."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=449472&page=1

"Agnostic Atheist"

Quote :

"Agnosticism, as far as religion goes, is one of the few foundations that actually leads to ethical actions."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=453525&page=3#9790380

A commie:

"Soapbox Summit II"

Quote :

"Communism is actually about freedom, freedom from the sorts of ills and alienation you find in capitalism. Not to say the actual implementations of this have done a good job so far (seeing as how nobody has actually implemented communism), but whatever. To claim that communism is inherently anti-freedom is kind of ignorant, or you just don't have a good definition of freedom."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=454135&page=1

And a walking self-contradiction:

"Much of 'science' is religion in disguise."

Quote :

"The point is -- scientists are beginning to corrupt their field through injecting their own religion. Their claim to objective metaphysical truth is evidence of this."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=447788&page=1

And apparently, even cyrion had his fill of your high moral tone:

/message_topic.aspx?topic=398382

Please STFU--but I know you won't can't.

10/23/2007 1:18:21 AM

Ahahahaha, good god. That was a lot of effort you went through just to make me smile and chuckle. I was having a shitty time hacking through a problem set tonight, but that lifted my spirits. The least I can do is respond to such a thorough job.

First of all, even if my opinions were identical to what they were however many months ago those quotes are from, I'd have a lot to say. But, I've become a lot more lax in my view towards religion in general (and have reserved my ire for specific religions, or rather, specific interpretations of specific religions). This seems to be a more sensible approach, as when you abstract out enough about what makes religion a negative force, you realize that these qualities stem from a different source altogether (this is to say, religion isn't the root).

I'm more convinced now that religion serves a need of sorts in our society -- a natural need. People have a natural need for mystery, and religion serves this. This drive is so strong in many cases that despite any level of brilliance the religious practitioner might have, his drive to preserve fundamental mystery in the world keeps him entertaining metaphysical notions.

I definitely think this is the case when science bridges into metaphysics as well. The quote you dug up from me on that subject was when my views on the subject weren't particularly well-formed, but I think they are now. I'm a thorough-going anti-realist about science, and I oppose using science to make metaphysical claims (which are fundamentally impossible to pin down -- only possible to rule out, if inconsistent with what we perceive or with themselves).

Feel free to point out the contradiction, though. I can't find one, myself.

As far as the communism claim is concerned, I'm not sure what about that statement suggests I'm actually a communist. I was simply clarifying the notion for people (like you, if I recall) who were confused and ignorant on the subject.

Quote :

""Agnostic Atheist""

Perhaps guilty as charged, but I lean towards pantheism sometimes as I consider possible explanations for the mind. It depends on the day, I suppose... I'm still forming my views on this. However, the further forming of my views center around delicate philosophical distinctions, and yeah, functionally (in a western sense), you could call me an agnostic atheist without much problem (if it makes you happy -- but I'm not sure what that proves about anything).

And I wish I could take the credit for the "immortal blunder" line, but that's Nietzsche's. I'm not sure anymore it's much of a blunder, because I really think that some people, in their personal developments, are at the level of Christianity. In essence, they need it in some way or other to get by. That's not a problem in and of itself, but it can lead to problems (in which cases I oppose it).

Soooooo, in retrospect (the non-words version):

I wouldn't say I'm a hate-filled, anti-religious schizo. There are conceptions of divinity I don't find so bad, but that I'm not compelled to believe in either (straight-forward rationality stands in the way in many cases). There are other conceptions of divinity that I do find bad, both because of the psychological damage they do to the believers, and the psychological (and sometimes physical) damage they do to non-believers when the believers act as an oppressive majority.

Edit:

Forgot to address something.

Quote :

""Show me a god who can stand up to rational inquiry, and you will have shown me a god worthy of worship. I'll be the first in line." God is not worthy of McDanger? Is that your thesis?"

Not quite ... my point was that any conception of god offered to me by western monotheist religion was too easily defeasible with straight-forward reason. It's not a claim that God isn't worthy of me, but that, if the existence of a God could be demonstrated to be compossible with the findings and context of rational inquiry, I might be on-board.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 1:51:06 AM

^ Yeah, I kind of forgot that I was communicating with a college kid--who can throw out his old nonsense and replace it with a whole truckload of new nonsense in about a 12-month period. My bad.

Oh, sorry about the "college kid" thing--but you don't believe in ageism either, do you? Or has that changed, too?

You're quite impressionable, it seems. You'd better stay away from the Hare Krishnas--and try not to be so condescending, okay?

10/23/2007 2:37:25 AM

I'm actually a graduate student like yourself, except instead of doing "liberal studies" (if I recall correctly this is your field), I study logic.

As for thinking in general, one learns that sometimes one should amend one's positions when a demonstration of a better position has been reached. One can only converge on the truth if one continually revises one's positions in light of better arguments and evidence. This should be a quality of both the young and the old, if they know how to reason properly.

Being tenacious and latching onto positions that are, over time, shown to be inaccurate in some way, is not a virtue. If anything, it's a way to ensure you arrive at beliefs that do not properly characterize your surroundings.

Quote :

"Oh, sorry about the "college kid" thing--but you don't believe in ageism either, do you? Or has that changed, too? "

Well besides being inaccurate ...

There's nothing wrong with your age at all -- but quite frankly, the way you act given your age is kind of embarrassing to watch. Take that as you will.

Quote :

"You're quite impressionable, it seems. You'd better stay away from the Hare Krishnas--and try not to be so condescending, okay?"

There's a difference between being impressionable and changing your opinion in light of more reasoning, better arguments, and better interpretations of the evidence (or, just more of it). As we all move along and learn, we are faced with a deluge of data and interpretations of that data which might or might not support our previous conclusions. Shifting your conclusions, when reading advanced material in practically any subject, is almost inevitable if you're a good thinker and concerned about converging upon a more accurate belief.

So in my case, I read a lot of the literature in philosophy of mind, in materialism, linguistics/philosophy of language, etc etc -- and of course, I change some of my positions when a better argument defeats my old arguments. This is far from arbitrary -- it's a positive, healthy process that pretty much any educated person goes through.

So would you say it's the case that as you learn new stuff, your beliefs never change? What a small world you must live in.

10/23/2007 2:47:43 AM

an image of doctors per capita in the world

10/23/2007 2:05:25 PM

kinda surprised cuba and all the ex-soviet bloc countries have some of the best rates in the world

10/23/2007 2:13:50 PM

Genetics / culture plays a big role in these statistics. To ignore those differences would be disingenuous.

10/23/2007 2:22:01 PM

^ Care to expand that claim some?

10/23/2007 2:44:57 PM

^Ill take a stab at it. If your culture consumes meat and fried foods at most meals vs. a culture that eats mostly fish and rice, is there any surprise that we lead the world in heart disease, and alot of asian cultures have very little heart disease?

10/23/2007 3:00:05 PM