Why do you think the government is your hired thug?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits
sorry, universal healthcare is not a plan that EVERYONE is forced to get. it's a safety net. if you don't have health insurance, you have the universal health care to fall back on. there's no imposition on you, except to pay a couple pennies from your paycheck for the greater good of the country. "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." a little bit of change towards helping others isn't asking a lot.

you're forced to pay taxes if you want to live in this country. that's just how it is, whether it be here or anyplace else.

think about what you're implying when you say that you want to pay to help and not be forced to... do you think our country would be better off with that kind of flawed policy? where do you think our military would be? how about government intelligence and research? how would we pay back the national debt? where would the government get enough money to aid other nations in times of need (natural disasters and such)? there aren't many people who'd have the presence of mind to give sums of money towards things they're unaware of. it's much, MUCH more efficient to take a little bit of change out of peoples' paychecks to go towards improving america than to fall back on a greedy people like you giving money whenever they feel like it.

Case in point. You as well don't even know what UHC looks like.
By definition, UHC and "single-payer" plans are not "safety nets," but unified government-provided mandatory health care.
Safety nets are voluntary systems, whereby the current private system would remain in place but anyone who needs healthcare AND can't afford it can still receive the minimum amount of care that they need.
A good analogy of the contrast would be the plight of the homeless. UHC would be guaranteed and equal government housing for everyone. "Safety nets" would be having enough homeless shelters.
Two entirely different situations here, and I am BTW in favor of the latter.
You should understand what you're arguing for before you argue for it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor
So screw that. I'll continue to pay high rates for great care. Those who can't pay will have to rely on charity. Those not provided for by charity can FOAD.

In your little rightwing UTOPIA. Don't confuse it with REALITY

I wish you medicare supporting Republican party shills would quit trying to force your beliefs on others and just let us be.

Huh? Whatever you are talking about, keep on wishing.

You're the one supporting the Republicans and their elderly base's Medicare.

Why don't you just go help the people you want to help yourself, instead of being lazy and demanding other people to do your work for you?

Because I have a job, and unlike you I don't want people to FOAD if they don't get charity healthcare.

I'm going to go take a homeless guy out to lunch today.

Good, maybe you can tell him to FOAD later

Now if you would propose something remotely reasonable like Health Care reform that just made insurance more affordable for people, I could get behind that, as long as it wasn't just a straight welfare program. There's a lot of stuff that can be done to make Health Care more reasonable, without taking money straight from me to give to someone less fortunate. As it stands, a lot of the people who don't have health care do have 2 kids, a cell phone, an ipod, and cable TV. But I should pay for their bad decisions, right?

Believe it or not, I'm a perfectly nice, social person. I don't tell people to FOAD unless they deserve it. But I'm in touch with reality, and I realize that there's not always enough to go around. Not enough money. Not enough Superbowl Tickets. Not enough turkey. Not enough health care. So yeah, put me at the hospital door, and I'll tell people who can't afford it that they have to FOAD. I won't enjoy the job, but I'd do it.

Now if one of those folk were your own Mother would you tell her to FOAD too?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

I'm putting this in my sig. It sums you up pretty well. I realize you were probably bread to be a sheep, but reverence to authority is NOT what this nation was based on, and it will lead to oppression and slavery 100% of the time.

I realize you're beyond hope, but here's one anyone:
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson

[/thread]

Too bad he didn't get that in the Constitution, for you.

Uh... he did. The Preamble has no force of law.


And I must say, one of the most Orwellian aspects of the UHC debate is the constant invoking of "the poor." UHC isn't about the poor. UHC is about the old. The gerontocracy in America which feeds off the young.
Why can't you world savers be more honest?

UHC is about the poor, not the old.
We already have UHC for the old, it's called Medicare.
Why can't you world haters be more honest?

Quit trolling. Medicare is mostly worthless. UHC will continue and exacerbate the long trend of government redistributing wealth from young to old. That's a serious concern for its implementation, and one that shouldn't just be swept under the rug with the usual "don't ask questions" bullshit.

And I think you should recognize that, when advocating sweeping change, you are not "defending" against anything, "world haters" or whatever. That would be like Bush thinking he "defended" America by attacking Iraq.

Maybe you should quit trolling yourself.
Medicare is mostly worthless? Says who? You? If it's so worthless why did the Republicans expand it?
UHC will not exacerbate anything. In fact it will provide the same health care to young people that is ALREADY provided to old people.
I am advocating sweeping change because the health care system needs sweeping change.
And it's inevitable, because the current employer provided health care model is unsustainable in a global economy when the competition does not have to price runaway insurance premiums directly into their export prices. You can yell and scream all you want, UHC will happen sooner or later.

You advocate sweeping changes because you are too ignorant to understand how complicated the issues actually are, and because your masters like it that way so that you give them a blank check.
And as usual, I have to remind you that the existence of a problem does not dictate its solution. That's knee-jerking. That "something" must be done does not tell us what that something is.
Case in point: you don't even know what UHC should look like. It's just a simple utopist fantasy in your head. Details, how it should be implemented, etc etc don't even exist to you, except real world "trivialities" that you don't even want to hear about.

I love your last sentence BTW for it irony. I'm not yelling and screaming. You are. And petulantly at that. And the one thing I know for certain is that, whether UHC "happens" or not, you will still be yelling and screaming then. For you, nothing is good enough now, and nothing will be good enough for you later. No matter what happens, you will always be demanding sweeping change, even after you've gotten. How can you not see that? And, most importantly, why do all the rest of us have to pay for your personal unhappiness with the world?

Because this is not rocket science. It has been tried and is working in many countries. We can look at their models and pick the best of what we want and not what we don't want. A good model would be where the government provides baseline preventative and basic health care to everyone, and private insurers provide supplemental coverage for those who want to cover what is not covered by the government plan. Seems like having preventative and basic health care be universal is a better plan than what we have now, where the baseline care that is available to everyone is at the ER at the most expensive late stage of the disease. Or you think it's better to make ER care available to everyone like it is now, but penny pinch on preventative care? Seems like penny wise pound foolish to me.

You're right, it's not rocket science. It's far more complicated than that.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor
So screw that. I'll continue to pay high rates for great care. Those who can't pay will have to rely on charity. Those not provided for by charity can FOAD.

In your little rightwing UTOPIA. Don't confuse it with REALITY

I wish you medicare supporting Republican party shills would quit trying to force your beliefs on others and just let us be.

Huh? Whatever you are talking about, keep on wishing.

You're the one supporting the Republicans and their elderly base's Medicare.

Why don't you just go help the people you want to help yourself, instead of being lazy and demanding other people to do your work for you?

Because I have a job, and unlike you I don't want people to FOAD if they don't get charity healthcare.

I'm going to go take a homeless guy out to lunch today.

Good, maybe you can tell him to FOAD later

Now if you would propose something remotely reasonable like Health Care reform that just made insurance more affordable for people, I could get behind that, as long as it wasn't just a straight welfare program. There's a lot of stuff that can be done to make Health Care more reasonable, without taking money straight from me to give to someone less fortunate. As it stands, a lot of the people who don't have health care do have 2 kids, a cell phone, an ipod, and cable TV. But I should pay for their bad decisions, right?

Believe it or not, I'm a perfectly nice, social person. I don't tell people to FOAD unless they deserve it. But I'm in touch with reality, and I realize that there's not always enough to go around. Not enough money. Not enough Superbowl Tickets. Not enough turkey. Not enough health care. So yeah, put me at the hospital door, and I'll tell people who can't afford it that they have to FOAD. I won't enjoy the job, but I'd do it.

Now if one of those folk were your own Mother would you tell her to FOAD too?

Come on Moonbeam, I'm gay. You know the answer to that question.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits
there's no imposition on you, except to pay a couple pennies from your paycheck for the greater good of the country. "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." a little bit of change towards helping others isn't asking a lot.

"Pennies"?!? Current estimates, based on the short list of proposed UHC plans, including Hillary's, show that the average cost in increased taxes will range between $500 and $1000, per tax payer, per month!

And you have the audacity to sit there and call that "pennies"?!

think about what you're implying when you say that you want to pay to help and not be forced to... do you think our country would be better off with that kind of flawed policy? where do you think our military would be?

Stop using the military strawman. National defense is an explicit provision of our federal governance. UHC is not.

where would the government get enough money to aid other nations in times of need (natural disasters and such)?

We shouldn't be doing so... as often, or with as much $.

it's much, MUCH more efficient to take a little bit of change out of peoples' paychecks to go towards improving america than to fall back on a greedy people like you giving money whenever they feel like it.

"a little bit of change"...LOL! You're delusional!

And how can he be both greedy AND giving at the same time? derrrRrrr

yeah, i forgot... a healthcare PLAN for the future, of which a majority of people disapprove = a valid concern. :roll:

you and your fear mongers... first, it's the global war on "terr" and now this :laugh:

we're losing our tax dollars to the 40+ million americans who aren't ensured faster than you can say "doctor". the cost per person will end up being less than it is now if we implement some kind of crutch healthcare system for those who need it.

health insurance costs out the ass and people can't afford that.

i don't know where the hell you got the $500/mo figure...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

WTF?

Pal, we are the government. "WE THE PEOPLE," remember?

So not only have you spat in the face of basic liberal philosophy with this comment, but it brings up real world logical issues (like how can the government be smarter than us when we are the government, etc etc).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

And there you have it folks! I nominate this as the Socialist Quote of the Year!

Welcome to my signature eits!

wow...

quit being so damn greedy and cough up some pennies to help people you don't know anything about... it's not going to hurt you.

Can YOU afford to pay an additional $500-$1000 per month to the government?

I know I can't...

CRAIG> You still haven't listed a single example of the mystery "things" I asked about. What are these mystery "larger good things" you keep mentioning that would apparently offset the six-month waiting lists and second-rate care?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

And there you have it folks! I nominate this as the Socialist Quote of the Year!

Welcome to my signature eits!

wow...

quit being so damn greedy and cough up some pennies to help people you don't know anything about... it's not going to hurt you.

Can YOU afford to pay an additional $500-$1000 per month to the government?

I know I can't...

CRAIG> You still haven't listed a single example of the mystery "things" I asked about. What are these mystery "larger good things" you keep mentioning that would apparently offset the six-month waiting lists and second-rate care?

Hey, I put it in my sig first!

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

I'm putting this in my sig. It sums you up pretty well. I realize you were probably bread to be a sheep, but reverence to authority is NOT what this nation was based on, and it will lead to oppression and slavery 100% of the time.

I realize you're beyond hope, but here's one anyone:
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328

way to take jefferson's quote out of context. he was talking about rule of government. we should decide what the government does or doesn't do... we SHOULD, but that's just not what's happening anymore

the quote has nothing to do with government spending for domestic programs that the public knows jack shit about. you're NOT an authority on anything that the government is spending tax dollars on. you're not a statistician and neither is the rest of america. 300 million people can't make a collective decision about what to spend money on... that's why we try and elect people to understand it all and make the decision for us. we vote for people who we THINK are like-minded and have our best interest at heart.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

And there you have it folks! I nominate this as the Socialist Quote of the Year!

Welcome to my signature eits!

I mean, isn't that how it works, though?

all elections really are is the people deciding who should spend their money.

I, for one, would love for my taxes to stop paying for jokes like ethanol, or for farmers to stop growing food, or for President Bush's salary, or for abstinence education, or for the war on drugs.

I'm sure people smarter than I am can point out why that would be a bad idea.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

I'm putting this in my sig. It sums you up pretty well. I realize you were probably bread to be a sheep, but reverence to authority is NOT what this nation was based on, and it will lead to oppression and slavery 100% of the time.

I realize you're beyond hope, but here's one anyone:
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328

way to take jefferson's quote out of context. he was talking about rule of government. we should decide what the government does or doesn't do... we SHOULD, but that's just not what's happening anymore

the quote has nothing to do with government spending for domestic programs that the public knows jack shit about. you're NOT an authority on anything that the government is spending tax dollars on. you're not a statistician and neither is the rest of america. 300 million people can't make a collective decision about what to spend money on... that's why we try and elect people to understand it all and make the decision for us. we vote for people who we THINK are like-minded and have our best interest at heart.

You lost this thread with your "government knows best" nanny-stateism. You know you could just move to England and save us all your ramblings. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

And there you have it folks! I nominate this as the Socialist Quote of the Year!

Welcome to my signature eits!

I mean, isn't that how it works, though?

all elections really are is the people deciding who should spend their money.

I, for one, would love for my taxes to stop paying for jokes like ethanol, or for farmers to stop growing food, or for President Bush's salary, or for abstinence education, or for the war on drugs.

I'm sure people smarter than I am can point out why that would be a bad idea.

I just don't understand how you can simultaneously say, "I'm not smart enough to run the government," while advocating "But I can pick someone who IS smart enough." You either think your ideas are good for the country, or you don't. And then find someone who represents your ideas, or run for office yourself.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

And there you have it folks! I nominate this as the Socialist Quote of the Year!

Welcome to my signature eits!

I mean, isn't that how it works, though?

all elections really are is the people deciding who should spend their money.

I, for one, would love for my taxes to stop paying for jokes like ethanol, or for farmers to stop growing food, or for President Bush's salary, or for abstinence education, or for the war on drugs.

I'm sure people smarter than I am can point out why that would be a bad idea.

It's the fact that this twisted ideology is his very core, and that it pervades every one of his political decisions, that makes it a threat to the rest of us.

"The government knows best!" is not a healthy ideology.

Real-world example: Social Security. Anyone with a pulse could make at least twice as much money for retirement if they were given the option to invest their SS taxes privately! but, some dipsh*t along the way, with eits' ideology, convinced the nation (or congress) that "the government can do it better," and we all know how well that will turn out for everyone in 2015, or so...

The same is true with UHC and any other "Government knows best" initiative.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

WTF?

Pal, we are the government. "WE THE PEOPLE," remember?

So not only have you spat in the face of basic liberal philosophy with this comment, but it brings up real world logical issues (like how can the government be smarter than us when we are the government, etc etc).

no, we should be the government, but we're not

what i said was taken out of context... what i meant by that statement was that the american public doesn't know crap about government, letalone what needs funding and what doesn't. that's why we elect people... to figure it out for us.

that's just the way it is... we elect people who we think are like-minded to voice our opinion on what the government should and shouldn't do. these people who're elected have information and knowledge about certain programs, etc. that we as a public don't know very much about.

if we had a society in which the public was constantly up to date with facts and figures and knowledge about all of the facets in the country that need governmental financial support and cared enough to pay up and support it, i'd gladly take back what i said. but since we don't, the hard fact is that the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that we elected them to do it so we don't have to. they know more about what's going on than we do.

i'm not saying surrender your voice and trust the government with everything... far from it. we need to keep our government in check and try to know what they know and voice our dissent when applicable... but as a people, we decide who gets to voice our opinion on how the money flows and who doesn't. no one would vote for some uneducated jackass who knew nothing about government spending and where money goes or had any concept of the facts and figures his staff tries to tell him (yes, i know... bush throws a wrench in that statement, but it's mostly true).

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

I'm putting this in my sig. It sums you up pretty well. I realize you were probably bread to be a sheep, but reverence to authority is NOT what this nation was based on, and it will lead to oppression and slavery 100% of the time.

I realize you're beyond hope, but here's one anyone:
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328

way to take jefferson's quote out of context. he was talking about rule of government. we should decide what the government does or doesn't do... we SHOULD, but that's just not what's happening anymore

the quote has nothing to do with government spending for domestic programs that the public knows jack shit about. you're NOT an authority on anything that the government is spending tax dollars on. you're not a statistician and neither is the rest of america. 300 million people can't make a collective decision about what to spend money on... that's why we try and elect people to understand it all and make the decision for us. we vote for people who we THINK are like-minded and have our best interest at heart.

You lost this thread with your "government knows best" nanny-stateism. You know you could just move to England and save us all your ramblings. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

actually, it's more like you tried manipulating the thread whenever you took my quote out of context.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Nebor
You lost this thread with your "government knows best" nanny-stateism. You know you could just move to England and save us all your ramblings. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

:thumbsup:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

And there you have it folks! I nominate this as the Socialist Quote of the Year!

Welcome to my signature eits!

I mean, isn't that how it works, though?

all elections really are is the people deciding who should spend their money.

I, for one, would love for my taxes to stop paying for jokes like ethanol, or for farmers to stop growing food, or for President Bush's salary, or for abstinence education, or for the war on drugs.

I'm sure people smarter than I am can point out why that would be a bad idea.

I just don't understand how you can simultaneously say, "I'm not smart enough to run the government," while advocating "But I can pick someone who IS smart enough." You either think your ideas are good for the country, or you don't. And then find someone who represents your ideas, or run for office yourself.

then i guess you're just out of touch with america. that's how it works. if it wasn't like that, then everyone would be wanting to run for office and making top grades in school in order to show their smarts and whatnot.

just because i said that the collective government is smarter than you ("you" being the average american and "government" being the elected officials), that doesn't mean you can sit comfortably back and let the chips fall where they may. i never once said that, and based on my post history, you should know that i'm pretty goddamn vocal in dissent about things in our govenment and call for change a lot. we elect them to make choices so we don't have to, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep a close eye on the decisions they make. if they get out of line, we take up arms and revolt/protect ourselves against the tyranny of the minority. that's how our government was meant to work.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

WTF?

Pal, we are the government. "WE THE PEOPLE," remember?

So not only have you spat in the face of basic liberal philosophy with this comment, but it brings up real world logical issues (like how can the government be smarter than us when we are the government, etc etc).

no, we should be the government, but we're not

what i said was taken out of context... what i meant by that statement was that the american public doesn't know crap about government, letalone what needs funding and what doesn't. that's why we elect people... to figure it out for us.

that's just the way it is... we elect people who we think are like-minded to voice our opinion on what the government should and shouldn't do. these people who're elected have information and knowledge about certain programs, etc. that we as a public don't know very much about.

if we had a society in which the public was constantly up to date with facts and figures and knowledge about all of the facets in the country that need governmental financial support and cared enough to pay up and support it, i'd gladly take back what i said. but since we don't, the hard fact is that the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that we elected them to do it so we don't have to. they know more about what's going on than we do.

i'm not saying surrender your voice and trust the government with everything... far from it. we need to keep our government in check and try to know what they know and voice our dissent when applicable... but as a people, we decide who gets to voice our opinion on how the money flows and who doesn't. no one would vote for some uneducated jackass who knew nothing about government spending and where money goes or had any concept of the facts and figures his staff tries to tell him (yes, i know... bush throws a wrench in that statement, but it's mostly true).

Nothing you said was taken out of context. Just because we elect representatives to act on our behalf does not mean that they are superior to us. Quite the opposite, they are our servants. Any power they have is power that we gave them. That is the core of liberal philosophy.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Now you might argue (as you appear to be) that it doesn't always seem to work out that way, but that's just the nature of democracy. People disagree, and you can't always get what you want. If you're a "world saver" type, that must bother you, but I see that as the best aspect of democracy (because it's tyrants who always get what they want).

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Nebor
You lost this thread with your "government knows best" nanny-stateism. You know you could just move to England and save us all your ramblings. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

:thumbsup:

land of the free and home of the brave, yeah... but it comes from paying taxes! if you want anarchy, go somewhere else.

 

[Vic]

Who argued for anarchy? Nebor is well-known for being an authoritarian in his own way.

The issue here is that this is what eits', senseamp's, and Craig's arguments look like:

ANAKIN: I don't think the system works.
PADMÉ: How would you have it work?
ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.
PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.
ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.
PADMÉ: By whom? Who's going to make them?
ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone.
PADMÉ: You?
ANAKIN: Of course not me.
PADMÉ: But someone.
ANAKIN: Someone wise.
PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
A mischievous little grin creeps across his face.
ANAKIN: Well, if it works...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson

[/thread]

Too bad he didn't get that in the Constitution, for you.

Uh... he did. The Preamble has no force of law.


And I must say, one of the most Orwellian aspects of the UHC debate is the constant invoking of "the poor." UHC isn't about the poor. UHC is about the old. The gerontocracy in America which feeds off the young.
Why can't you world savers be more honest?

UHC is about the poor, not the old.
We already have UHC for the old, it's called Medicare.
Why can't you world haters be more honest?

Quit trolling. Medicare is mostly worthless. UHC will continue and exacerbate the long trend of government redistributing wealth from young to old. That's a serious concern for its implementation, and one that shouldn't just be swept under the rug with the usual "don't ask questions" bullshit.

And I think you should recognize that, when advocating sweeping change, you are not "defending" against anything, "world haters" or whatever. That would be like Bush thinking he "defended" America by attacking Iraq.

Maybe you should quit trolling yourself.
Medicare is mostly worthless? Says who? You? If it's so worthless why did the Republicans expand it?
UHC will not exacerbate anything. In fact it will provide the same health care to young people that is ALREADY provided to old people.
I am advocating sweeping change because the health care system needs sweeping change.
And it's inevitable, because the current employer provided health care model is unsustainable in a global economy when the competition does not have to price runaway insurance premiums directly into their export prices. You can yell and scream all you want, UHC will happen sooner or later.

You advocate sweeping changes because you are too ignorant to understand how complicated the issues actually are, and because your masters like it that way so that you give them a blank check.
And as usual, I have to remind you that the existence of a problem does not dictate its solution. That's knee-jerking. That "something" must be done does not tell us what that something is.
Case in point: you don't even know what UHC should look like. It's just a simple utopist fantasy in your head. Details, how it should be implemented, etc etc don't even exist to you, except real world "trivialities" that you don't even want to hear about.

I love your last sentence BTW for it irony. I'm not yelling and screaming. You are. And petulantly at that. And the one thing I know for certain is that, whether UHC "happens" or not, you will still be yelling and screaming then. For you, nothing is good enough now, and nothing will be good enough for you later. No matter what happens, you will always be demanding sweeping change, even after you've gotten. How can you not see that? And, most importantly, why do all the rest of us have to pay for your personal unhappiness with the world?

Because this is not rocket science. It has been tried and is working in many countries. We can look at their models and pick the best of what we want and not what we don't want. A good model would be where the government provides baseline preventative and basic health care to everyone, and private insurers provide supplemental coverage for those who want to cover what is not covered by the government plan. Seems like having preventative and basic health care be universal is a better plan than what we have now, where the baseline care that is available to everyone is at the ER at the most expensive late stage of the disease. Or you think it's better to make ER care available to everyone like it is now, but penny pinch on preventative care? Seems like penny wise pound foolish to me.

You're right, it's not rocket science. It's far more complicated than that.

Aside from the first sentence, you have no objection?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits
the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that they're smarter than you and they know more about things than you.

WTF?

Pal, we are the government. "WE THE PEOPLE," remember?

So not only have you spat in the face of basic liberal philosophy with this comment, but it brings up real world logical issues (like how can the government be smarter than us when we are the government, etc etc).

no, we should be the government, but we're not

what i said was taken out of context... what i meant by that statement was that the american public doesn't know crap about government, letalone what needs funding and what doesn't. that's why we elect people... to figure it out for us.

that's just the way it is... we elect people who we think are like-minded to voice our opinion on what the government should and shouldn't do. these people who're elected have information and knowledge about certain programs, etc. that we as a public don't know very much about.

if we had a society in which the public was constantly up to date with facts and figures and knowledge about all of the facets in the country that need governmental financial support and cared enough to pay up and support it, i'd gladly take back what i said. but since we don't, the hard fact is that the benefit of having the government decide where the money goes is that we elected them to do it so we don't have to. they know more about what's going on than we do.

i'm not saying surrender your voice and trust the government with everything... far from it. we need to keep our government in check and try to know what they know and voice our dissent when applicable... but as a people, we decide who gets to voice our opinion on how the money flows and who doesn't. no one would vote for some uneducated jackass who knew nothing about government spending and where money goes or had any concept of the facts and figures his staff tries to tell him (yes, i know... bush throws a wrench in that statement, but it's mostly true).

Nothing you said was taken out of context. Just because we elect representatives to act on our behalf does not mean that they are superior to us. Quite the opposite, they are our servants. Any power they have is power that we gave them. That is the core of liberal philosophy.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Now you might argue (as you appear to be) that it doesn't always seem to work out that way, but that's just the nature of democracy. People disagree, and you can't always get what you want. If you're a "world saver" type, that must bother you, but I see that as the best aspect of democracy (because it's tyrants who always get what they want).

when did i say they were superior? ... i said they were "smarter," as in being privy to knowledge the public isn't aware of. like i said, that doesn't mean we should just "set it and forget it".

i know full well that the government are our employees. i've made countless posts about that. i dissent constantly against our government's action. do you think i do that because, "well, government knows best... i guess they're smarter than me, so whatever... let the chips fall where they may." no. obviously, i don't feel that way.

that doesn't change the fact that we vote in smart, like-minded people to make decisions for us. you don't go to a doctor's office and tell the doctor what to do... you don't sit there and say, "you're my servant" and start telling him what to prescribe. you sit there and listen to the diagnosis and read up on the prescription you're given. you keep track of whether you're getting better or worse or having side-effects. then, you tell the doctor about it... if the doctor doesn't change his treatment plan, you fucking fire his ass and get another doctor. the same thing applies with how the government works. you have to be active in what the government is up to.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who argued for anarchy? Nebor is well-known for being an authoritarian in his own way.

The issue here is that this is what eits', senseamp's, and Craig's arguments look like:

ANAKIN: I don't think the system works.
PADMÉ: How would you have it work?
ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.
PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.
ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.
PADMÉ: By whom? Who's going to make them?
ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone.
PADMÉ: You?
ANAKIN: Of course not me.
PADMÉ: But someone.
ANAKIN: Someone wise.
PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
A mischievous little grin creeps across his face.
ANAKIN: Well, if it works...

dude, that's a very far cry from my argument. i apologize if that's how it looks to you, but that's not at all how it is.

i think that my quote that you people have taken out of context has inaccurately cast a perception of how i feel. that's unfortunate, i guess.

edit: unless you're implying that i sound like padme, which is exactly what i'm trying to say.

 

[BoberFett]

eits

You are the reason so many people despise modern day liberals. If you truly believe that those in government are smarter and know more than we do, then you should be 100% behind the Iraq war. Obviously as president, Bush knows more than you do.

On the other hand if you are against Iraq, then you must admit that government is fallible and not necessarily able to make the best decisions, thereby negating your assertion that they'll make the right decision regarding health care.

Quite a paradox, eh?