Originally posted by Fishermage If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
That's the difference between us. I trust love, you trust brute force.
No....I trust NEITHER. Trusting love is foolish because you cannot determine what is in the heart of OTHER people. You can't even truly know your OWN heart (the Bible says that the heart is deceitful). Trusting "love" is trusting an ethereal emotion, choice, or idea that often doesn't even act in the best interests of those that it purports to "love." Define love. Try to define it. You cannot. Because it means something different to everyone who utters the word. Most of mankind "loves" no one but themselves. And your Christian definition of love doesn't even compel most Christians to act in loving ways, so how do you suppose that's going to work across a much broader spectrum? It's not. (No offense to Christians, or to people of other faiths either.)
"Brute force," as you call it, is what attempts to keep society from eating itself WHOLE. You're calling the law, or laws of the land, "brute force." The Bible, by the way, says to obey the laws of the land. You might want to look that one up. The law is what ATTEMPTS to keep criminals off the street and tries to guide millions of people in the right direction (because after all, dear sir, EVERYONE is not Christian, nor does EVERYONE even have a basic code of ethics and morals by which they live. There are people that actually have no definitive conscience to convict them of "right" and "wrong" at ALL).
This way of the "law" can also not be trusted, because it lends to a hunger for power in politics, etc.
I know YOU think "love" can do this. Your BRAND of love, i.e. "Christian" love, has had many centuries to "love this world into a better state." It has failed. Sure....ideally, "love is the answer." The problem is.....the kind of "love" that you're talking about, doesn't exist in the general populace. It doesn't even exist in a LOT of the "Church." I think you have a very overly optimistic idea of the "good of humanity." That is noble for you to think that way, but it is also unrealistic.
Again I am sorry, I completely trust neither, but I do not feel it is right to force one group of people to serva nother.
It's not that I think love can do this, it is that, to me, love is the only option. For me force will never be a valid option in this area.
Since NEITHER can fully do it, why not do it the RIGHT way?
This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.
Where in Fisher's post that was quoted to begin this little theological debate does it say "Christians," "the Church," or "Christianity?" It's entirely possible that I missed it because I haven't yet finished my coffee, but I don't see it. Also, how did the discussion go from a relatively political topic to a religious one?
Whether Fisher's, Geekgirl's, Endiku's or my opinion on a political matter stems from whatever faith we adhere to is completely irrelevant. (Sorry, Geekgirl and Endiku: yours were the only other names I could remember from the posts in this thread.)
The topic at hand is whether or not one political group behaves in a manner that implies that one type of good or service currently in the private sector's domain is any different from any other type of good or service that is currently in the private sector's domain.
The fact that anyone posting their opinions here is of any faith: Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Taoist, or International United Association of Doorknob Worshippers has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it is my opinion that attacking anyone's opinion on the political issue at hand on the basis of their spiritual beliefs detracts completely from the topic.
Mahatma Ghandi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." But the same could be said of Muslims: "I like your Allah. I do not like your Muslims. Your Muslims are so unlike your Allah.", Jews: "I like your G-d. I do not like your Israelites. Your Israelites are so unlike your G-d.", Buddhists: "I like your Buddha...", Taoists: "I like your Tao...", or even Athiests: "I like your atheism..." or doorknob worshippers: "I like your doorknob..."
In point of fact, so few adherents to any particular faith are accurate representations of their object of worship that, to single any one group out is an exercise in either futility or stupidity (I can't decide which, to be honest). But, if you want to get Biblical...in ancient Israel, the kingship (political leadership) and the priesthood (spiritual leadership) were kept entirely separate. King Saul's prophet was Samuel; King David's was Nathan - and so on. The kingship and the priesthood were kept separate - deliberately. Here in the United States, we deliberately separate church (religious leadership) and state (political leadership) under our Constitution (and many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, sorry to burst anyone's bubble).
Since (Biblically speaking) God saw fit to separate faith and politics, it is my opinion that we would all do well to follow that example: leave both religious advocacy and attacks out of political discussion. In the words of Smokey the Bear, "Only YOU can prevent [flame wars]." ;P
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
I'm confused. Where in Fisher's post that was quoted to begin this little theological debate does it say "Christians," "the Church," or "Christianity?" It's entirely possible that I missed it because I haven't yet finished my coffee, but I don't see it. Also, how did the discussion go from a relatively political topic to a religious one? Whether Fisher's, Geekgirl's, Endiku's or my opinion on a political matter stems from whatever faith we adhere to is completely irrelevant. (Sorry, Geekgirl and Endiku: yours were the only other names I could remember from the posts in this thread.) The topic at hand is whether or not one political group behaves in a manner that implies that one type of good or service currently in the private sector's domain is any different from any other type of good or service that is currently in the private sector's domain. The fact that anyone posting their opinions here is of any faith: Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Taoist, or International United Association of Doorknob Worshippers has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it is my opinion that attacking anyone's opinion on the political issue at hand on the basis of their spiritual beliefs detracts completely from the topic. Mahatma Ghandi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." But the same could be said of Muslims: "I like your Allah. I do not like your Muslims. Your Muslims are so unlike your Allah.", Jews: "I like your G-d. I do not like your Israelites. Your Israelites are so unlike your G-d.", Buddhists: "I like your Buddha...", Taoists: "I like your Tao...", or even Athiests: "I like your atheism..." or doorknob worshippers: "I like your doorknob..." In point of fact, so few adherents to any particular faith are accurate representations of their object of worship that, to single any one group out is an exercise in either futility or stupidity (I can't decide which, to be honest). But, if you want to get Biblical...in ancient Israel, the kingship (political leadership) and the priesthood (spiritual leadership) were kept entirely separate. King Saul's prophet was Samuel; King David's was Nathan - and so on. The kingship and the priesthood were kept separate - deliberately. Here in the United States, we deliberately separate church (religious leadership) and state (political leadership) under our Constitution (and many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, sorry to burst anyone's bubble). Since (Biblically speaking) God saw fit to separate faith and politics, it is my opinion that we would all do well to follow that example: leave both religious advocacy and attacks out of political discussion. In the words of Smokey the Bear, "Only YOU can prevent [flame wars]." ;P
First of all, I don't SEE a "flame war." We're having a discussion here about "choosing" to give to others and help those in need or, as Fisher put it, being "forced" to pay taxes (and other HORRIBLE things) to help our fellow human beings. Fisher brought up trusting "love" to take care of things. Nice idea, but love, nor religion, nor politics can be completely trusted.
If people are given a "choice" of whether or not to help those in need....most would likely choose to only help their "own." Like I said in the post right before this....some people don't EVEN help their own families. Do we honestly think they would "choose" to contribute to help others in society??? Seriously.
And THAT is how "religion" got brought into the picture. You'd have to go back and read the whole thread, which is a laborious and tedious task, but the topic of relgion(s) didn't just pop out of the woodwork. It got brought in while discussing "charity," essentially.
Because it IS a need and it HAS NOT been treated like any other goods or services. The system IMO, has actually COLLAPSED. Nothing Obama can do can make the situation worse- that is where we are currently sitting now. My mother, who actually is a nurse, feels the same way I do. Almost every single issue people cite as a problem with universal healthcare already exists with the current system, to a much worse degree.
And guess what? This is a problem that demands cold hard cash to solve. Banks got trillions and trillions, and the world was supposedly going to end when/if they became insolvent and it was a national crisis blah blah blah... people went batshit over that but not healthcare reform. Yeah.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
I give real solutions, but no one cares to listen. Especially not our politicians because it goes against those padding thei pocketbooks, there are real solutions that solve the problem, but people do not want real solutions, they want to support their political parties. By solving the problem there is nothing left to argue about, I guess that just isn;t fun for people.
This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
Because it IS a need and it HAS NOT been treated like any other goods or services. The system IMO, has actually COLLAPSED. Nothing Obama can do can make the situation worse- that is where we are currently sitting now. My mother, who actually is a nurse, feels the same way I do. Almost every single issue people cite as a problem with universal healthcare already exists with the current system, to a much worse degree.
And guess what? This is a problem that demands cold hard cash to solve. Banks got trillions and trillions, and the world was supposedly going to end when/if they became insolvent and it was a national crisis blah blah blah... people went batshit over that but not healthcare reform. Yeah.
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.
The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.
Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government. The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here. Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
LOL, Fisher you might have had as much as I have to drink tonight given your typos! There is no just cause to force " the people" to do anything. The problem of course is the paracites preying upon these people that must be addressed to preserve the lives they cherish.
These paracites are our current insurance and pharmaceuticeutical industries, and yes they need regulation since the thought of human decency has far been left behind in their business dealings in this day and age. I do not think government control is the answer but a replacement of the AMA with IADMD is on order, as well as the regulation needed to make them abide by what should be deemed crimes against humanity. When they deliberately cause more human deaths they should be held accountable. What I have expieranced in the medical field would amount to worse than the holocost, there is legislation that is in order.
The solutions being offered by the doctors that uphold thier oaths to protect the people, to save lives, do not bankrupt this country, and make sure everyone is treated with the best care they can possibly receive, I think they should be considered.
The only reason they are not being considered at this time is :
1. they do not giv government control.
2. they do not cater to the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry.
3. the AMA does not want to combine dental and medical to provide overall better treatment because they want to maintain control without intrusion. Their elite club is more imprtant to them than the patients.
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government. The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here. Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
First of all, I don't SEE a "flame war." We're having a discussion here about "choosing" to give to others and help those in need or, as Fisher put it, being "forced" to pay taxes (and other HORRIBLE things) to help our fellow human beings. Fisher brought up trusting "love" to take care of things. Nice idea, but love, nor religion, nor politics can be completely trusted. If people are given a "choice" of whether or not to help those in need....most would likely choose to only help their "own." Like I said in the post right before this....some people don't EVEN help their own families. Do we honestly think they would "choose" to contribute to help others in society??? Seriously. And THAT is how "religion" got brought into the picture. You'd have to go back and read the whole thread, which is a laborious and tedious task, but the topic of relgion(s) didn't just pop out of the woodwork. It got brought in while discussing "charity," essentially.
I actually did read the thread in its entirety. The question I was asking had more to do with the fact that, in both my opinion and experience, charity and love are not necessarily religious in nature. Again, perhaps I misread (I have been known to do that - many times) both on the initial reading earlier and when I re-read the thread just now, but I still fail to see how it is that love and charity are distinctly Christian in nature (or so the direction the thread seemed to briefly take after the point was brought up seems to imply). *shrug* To each his/her own.
Oh, and the "flame war" bit was tongue in cheek - though I have seen the injection of religion into threads cause many a glorious trainwreck in the past.
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government. The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here. Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Why has heathcare become regarded as a basic human right rather than a capitalistic service? How is it different than things like haircuts or oil change services? Its astonishing that people forget the basic economic concepts when it comes to healthcare. It's not a right, its an expensive service that not everyone can afford. If you can't afford a product, you don't buy it. Yet doctors and medicine don't follow that? - Avg cost of an MRI: $2000 - Avg cost of heart bypass surgeory: $57,000 Now answer me this, why do liberals act like these services/products do not follow the basic rules of trade? Why should these industry items be considered "free?" The reason why socialzed medicine won't work is because we, as a country, cannot afford it. Not with taxes either. The point is that medicine is a business.. a gigantic one at that. The prices of goods and services within this sector are determined with supply/demand just like everything else in the US. I fail to understand how citizens can say to themselves, "Well I sure as hell can't afford this, so the government should buy it for me!"
ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder
Specifically, the dissocial personality disorder is described by the World Health Organization by the following criteria:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government. The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here. Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.
All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.
Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government. The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here. Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.
All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.
Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.
When you put government in terms of "brute force," it's no wonder you're so pants-wettingly terrified of it. Fortunately, government done right is not only "brute force."
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government. The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here. Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.
All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.
Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.
When you put government in terms of "brute force," it's no wonder you're so pants-wettingly terrified of it. Fortunately, government done right is not only "brute force."
I'm not terrified of anything, I am merely discussing what I think constitutes the proper place of government in a free society. Government is brute force; it is how we apply the legal use of force in our lives. That's nothing to be a afraid, of, but it is something to understand. It is what it is.
Behind every law is a gun.
There is nothing government can do that is NOT brute force.
This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
Actually the case I make is very similar to the one I make for gun control. Laws are for law abiding citizens. You can make a million laws and the ONLY people that will obey them are those that choose to obey them...period. You, as a human being, always HAVE a choice. But as with all choices that you make in life, regardless of what the choices are, there are consequences to choices, regardless of WHAT you specifically choose.
Criminals that want to have guns will always find a way to have guns. Laws making them illegal will not matter in the long run. And I suppose the same can be said of your "brute force" theory of making carrying health insurance a law. People will do what they want. So your solution is to abolish all laws? Is that the idea? See there is ONE good thing about having laws. You still have a choice, but....if you choose to murder someone...the law is going to hunt your ass down and take you off the street so that you're no longer a danger to other people. No....the law won't "stop you" from making your choice. But you choice will have some sort of consequences.
When did parents stop teaching responsibility for ones own actions? That's what I'd like to know. Because the blame game is all you see any more. What happened to ACCOUNTABILITY for your own actions and choices? I suppose you think that teaching your children through discipline is also "brute force?" And this is why so many unruly, out of control, anti-social, sociopathic, narcissistic individuals inhabit the planet.
If you want to have "freedom" and make your own choices.....then you will have to start taking responsibility for their outcome. That means not expecting others to pay for your choices. If you choose to have no insurance, then instead of hospitals passing on YOUR bills to ME....you should suffer the consequences of being sued to pay your OWN bill, rather than them raising MY cost of insurance, which I willingly pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way.
Now I can hear you saying, "THAT is what I'm SAYING!! I don't want to have to pay for someone ELSE!" No, that isn't what I'm saying. There ARE things that happen to people that are NOT within the realm of their choice. My son is a good example here. He had just turned 18, graduated from high school, and had started a job with a local company when he was stricken with a heart condition (he actually had it, but no one knew) and he required emergency surgery to fix his heart. He was no longer on our insurance, because he was 18 and no longer in school. He had no insurance yet, because he hadn't been at his job long enough yet to have it. He had not MADE any "bad choices." He was a victim of circumstance.
Medicaid (i.e. our state taxpayers taxes, including my own) PAID for his surgery to the tune of over 50 thousand dollars. He would never have been able to afford that, nor would we. Now....under your argument for not being "forced" to pay taxes for Medicaid, essentially, my son would have been what....doomed to die? For what? He made no bad choices that warranted that.
I can choose to get a high school diploma, or skip school and drop out. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to use birth control...or not. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to keep a firearm in my home...or not....both choices may have consequences. Consequences to a choice can bring good things, or bad things.
If you choose to not have insurance, that choice can bring many varied consequences....even now....while no "laws" exist requiring you to be responsible for your choice.
This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
Actually the case I make is very similar to the one I make for gun control. Laws are for law abiding citizens. You can make a million laws and the ONLY people that will obey them are those that choose to obey them...period. You, as a human being, always HAVE a choice. But as with all choices that you make in life, regardless of what the choices are, there are consequences to choices, regardless of WHAT you specifically choose.
Criminals that want to have guns will always find a way to have guns. Laws making them illegal will not matter in the long run. And I suppose the same can be said of your "brute force" theory of making carrying health insurance a law. People will do what they want. So your solution is to abolish all laws? Is that the idea? See there is ONE good thing about having laws. You still have a choice, but....if you choose to murder someone...the law is going to hunt your ass down and take you off the street so that you're no longer a danger to other people. No....the law won't "stop you" from making your choice. But you choice will have some sort of consequences.
When did parents stop teaching responsibility for ones own actions? That's what I'd like to know. Because the blame game is all you see any more. What happened to ACCOUNTABILITY for your own actions and choices? I suppose you think that teaching your children through discipline is also "brute force?" And this is why so many unruly, out of control, anti-social, sociopathic, narcissistic individuals inhabit the planet.
If you want to have "freedom" and make your own choices.....then you will have to start taking responsibility for their outcome. That means not expecting others to pay for your choices. If you choose to have no insurance, then instead of hospitals passing on YOUR bills to ME....you should suffer the consequences of being sued to pay your OWN bill, rather than them raising MY cost of insurance, which I willingly pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way.
Now I can hear you saying, "THAT is what I'm SAYING!! I don't want to have to pay for someone ELSE!" No, that isn't what I'm saying. There ARE things that happen to people that are NOT within the realm of their choice. My son is a good example here. He had just turned 18, graduated from high school, and had started a job with a local company when he was stricken with a heart condition (he actually had it, but no one knew) and he required emergency surgery to fix his heart. He was no longer on our insurance, because he was 18 and no longer in school. He had no insurance yet, because he hadn't been at his job long enough yet to have it. He had not MADE any "bad choices." He was a victim of circumstance.
Medicaid (i.e. our state taxpayers taxes, including my own) PAID for his surgery to the tune of over 50 thousand dollars. He would never have been able to afford that, nor would we. Now....under your argument for not being "forced" to pay taxes for Medicaid, essentially, my son would have been what....doomed to die? For what? He made no bad choices that warranted that.
I can choose to get a high school diploma, or skip school and drop out. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to use birth control...or not. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to keep a firearm in my home...or not....both choices may have consequences. Consequences to a choice can bring good things, or bad things.
If you choose to not have insurance, that choice can bring many varied consequences....even now....while no "laws" exist requiring you to be responsible for your choice.
Not sure why you posted all that, but none of it is even remotely a valid argument for forcing one group of people to pay for the health care of another.
Why has heathcare become regarded as a basic human right rather than a capitalistic service? How is it different than things like haircuts or oil change services? Its astonishing that people forget the basic economic concepts when it comes to healthcare. It's not a right, its an expensive service that not everyone can afford. If you can't afford a product, you don't buy it. Yet doctors and medicine don't follow that? - Avg cost of an MRI: $2000 - Avg cost of heart bypass surgeory: $57,000 Now answer me this, why do liberals act like these services/products do not follow the basic rules of trade? Why should these industry items be considered "free?" The reason why socialzed medicine won't work is because we, as a country, cannot afford it. Not with taxes either. The point is that medicine is a business.. a gigantic one at that. The prices of goods and services within this sector are determined with supply/demand just like everything else in the US. I fail to understand how citizens can say to themselves, "Well I sure as hell can't afford this, so the government should buy it for me!"
The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Originally posted by Mrbloodworth Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich. The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.
I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH. It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
Originally posted by Slythe Originally posted by Mrbloodworth Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich. The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.
I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH. It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil Socialists like France, are ranked number 1. Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this. But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
Thirded.
Good, sound and humane reasons why the country that's a world leader should provide for its own citizens health.
It's very important simply because as the people go, the country goes. Better healthy, happy citizens means more production and increased economic production overall due to fit employees.
Originally posted by Mrbloodworth Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich. The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.
I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH. It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
So because it is your HEALTH (something magical, I guess) it is therefore your right to take it from others by brute force? Sorry, I don't believe that.
The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.
I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH. It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
Thirded.
Good, sound and humane reasons why the country that's a world leader should provide for its own citizens health.
It's very important simply because as the people go, the country goes. Better healthy, happy citizens means more production and increased economic production overall due to fit employees.
If you want to provide for the health care of others, nothing is stopping you. Nothing gives you the right to force others to do your bidding.
Comments
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
That's the difference between us. I trust love, you trust brute force.
No....I trust NEITHER. Trusting love is foolish because you cannot determine what is in the heart of OTHER people. You can't even truly know your OWN heart (the Bible says that the heart is deceitful). Trusting "love" is trusting an ethereal emotion, choice, or idea that often doesn't even act in the best interests of those that it purports to "love." Define love. Try to define it. You cannot. Because it means something different to everyone who utters the word. Most of mankind "loves" no one but themselves. And your Christian definition of love doesn't even compel most Christians to act in loving ways, so how do you suppose that's going to work across a much broader spectrum? It's not. (No offense to Christians, or to people of other faiths either.)
"Brute force," as you call it, is what attempts to keep society from eating itself WHOLE. You're calling the law, or laws of the land, "brute force." The Bible, by the way, says to obey the laws of the land. You might want to look that one up. The law is what ATTEMPTS to keep criminals off the street and tries to guide millions of people in the right direction (because after all, dear sir, EVERYONE is not Christian, nor does EVERYONE even have a basic code of ethics and morals by which they live. There are people that actually have no definitive conscience to convict them of "right" and "wrong" at ALL).
This way of the "law" can also not be trusted, because it lends to a hunger for power in politics, etc.
I know YOU think "love" can do this. Your BRAND of love, i.e. "Christian" love, has had many centuries to "love this world into a better state." It has failed. Sure....ideally, "love is the answer." The problem is.....the kind of "love" that you're talking about, doesn't exist in the general populace. It doesn't even exist in a LOT of the "Church." I think you have a very overly optimistic idea of the "good of humanity." That is noble for you to think that way, but it is also unrealistic.
Again I am sorry, I completely trust neither, but I do not feel it is right to force one group of people to serva nother.
It's not that I think love can do this, it is that, to me, love is the only option. For me force will never be a valid option in this area.
Since NEITHER can fully do it, why not do it the RIGHT way?
fishermage.blogspot.com
This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm confused.
Where in Fisher's post that was quoted to begin this little theological debate does it say "Christians," "the Church," or "Christianity?" It's entirely possible that I missed it because I haven't yet finished my coffee, but I don't see it. Also, how did the discussion go from a relatively political topic to a religious one?
Whether Fisher's, Geekgirl's, Endiku's or my opinion on a political matter stems from whatever faith we adhere to is completely irrelevant. (Sorry, Geekgirl and Endiku: yours were the only other names I could remember from the posts in this thread.)
The topic at hand is whether or not one political group behaves in a manner that implies that one type of good or service currently in the private sector's domain is any different from any other type of good or service that is currently in the private sector's domain.
The fact that anyone posting their opinions here is of any faith: Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Taoist, or International United Association of Doorknob Worshippers has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it is my opinion that attacking anyone's opinion on the political issue at hand on the basis of their spiritual beliefs detracts completely from the topic.
Mahatma Ghandi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." But the same could be said of Muslims: "I like your Allah. I do not like your Muslims. Your Muslims are so unlike your Allah.", Jews: "I like your G-d. I do not like your Israelites. Your Israelites are so unlike your G-d.", Buddhists: "I like your Buddha...", Taoists: "I like your Tao...", or even Athiests: "I like your atheism..." or doorknob worshippers: "I like your doorknob..."
In point of fact, so few adherents to any particular faith are accurate representations of their object of worship that, to single any one group out is an exercise in either futility or stupidity (I can't decide which, to be honest). But, if you want to get Biblical...in ancient Israel, the kingship (political leadership) and the priesthood (spiritual leadership) were kept entirely separate. King Saul's prophet was Samuel; King David's was Nathan - and so on. The kingship and the priesthood were kept separate - deliberately. Here in the United States, we deliberately separate church (religious leadership) and state (political leadership) under our Constitution (and many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, sorry to burst anyone's bubble).
Since (Biblically speaking) God saw fit to separate faith and politics, it is my opinion that we would all do well to follow that example: leave both religious advocacy and attacks out of political discussion. In the words of Smokey the Bear, "Only YOU can prevent [flame wars]." ;P
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
First of all, I don't SEE a "flame war." We're having a discussion here about "choosing" to give to others and help those in need or, as Fisher put it, being "forced" to pay taxes (and other HORRIBLE things) to help our fellow human beings. Fisher brought up trusting "love" to take care of things. Nice idea, but love, nor religion, nor politics can be completely trusted.
If people are given a "choice" of whether or not to help those in need....most would likely choose to only help their "own." Like I said in the post right before this....some people don't EVEN help their own families. Do we honestly think they would "choose" to contribute to help others in society??? Seriously.
And THAT is how "religion" got brought into the picture. You'd have to go back and read the whole thread, which is a laborious and tedious task, but the topic of relgion(s) didn't just pop out of the woodwork. It got brought in while discussing "charity," essentially.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Why is it different?
Because it IS a need and it HAS NOT been treated like any other goods or services. The system IMO, has actually COLLAPSED. Nothing Obama can do can make the situation worse- that is where we are currently sitting now. My mother, who actually is a nurse, feels the same way I do. Almost every single issue people cite as a problem with universal healthcare already exists with the current system, to a much worse degree.
And guess what? This is a problem that demands cold hard cash to solve. Banks got trillions and trillions, and the world was supposedly going to end when/if they became insolvent and it was a national crisis blah blah blah... people went batshit over that but not healthcare reform. Yeah.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
I give real solutions, but no one cares to listen. Especially not our politicians because it goes against those padding thei pocketbooks, there are real solutions that solve the problem, but people do not want real solutions, they want to support their political parties. By solving the problem there is nothing left to argue about, I guess that just isn;t fun for people.
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
fishermage.blogspot.com
There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.
The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.
Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,
fishermage.blogspot.com
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
LOL, Fisher you might have had as much as I have to drink tonight given your typos!
There is no just cause to force " the people" to do anything. The problem of course is the paracites preying upon these people that must be addressed to preserve the lives they cherish.
These paracites are our current insurance and pharmaceuticeutical industries, and yes they need regulation since the thought of human decency has far been left behind in their business dealings in this day and age. I do not think government control is the answer but a replacement of the AMA with IADMD is on order, as well as the regulation needed to make them abide by what should be deemed crimes against humanity. When they deliberately cause more human deaths they should be held accountable. What I have expieranced in the medical field would amount to worse than the holocost, there is legislation that is in order.
The solutions being offered by the doctors that uphold thier oaths to protect the people, to save lives, do not bankrupt this country, and make sure everyone is treated with the best care they can possibly receive, I think they should be considered.
The only reason they are not being considered at this time is :
1. they do not giv government control.
2. they do not cater to the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry.
3. the AMA does not want to combine dental and medical to provide overall better treatment because they want to maintain control without intrusion. Their elite club is more imprtant to them than the patients.
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I actually did read the thread in its entirety. The question I was asking had more to do with the fact that, in both my opinion and experience, charity and love are not necessarily religious in nature. Again, perhaps I misread (I have been known to do that - many times) both on the initial reading earlier and when I re-read the thread just now, but I still fail to see how it is that love and charity are distinctly Christian in nature (or so the direction the thread seemed to briefly take after the point was brought up seems to imply). *shrug* To each his/her own.
Oh, and the "flame war" bit was tongue in cheek - though I have seen the injection of religion into threads cause many a glorious trainwreck in the past.
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder
Specifically, the dissocial personality disorder is described by the World Health Organization by the following criteria:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
Hope you don't meet the other 9.
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.
All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.
Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.
All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.
Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.
When you put government in terms of "brute force," it's no wonder you're so pants-wettingly terrified of it. Fortunately, government done right is not only "brute force."
The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.
As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.
The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.
A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.
Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.
Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.
Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.
I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.
All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.
Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.
When you put government in terms of "brute force," it's no wonder you're so pants-wettingly terrified of it. Fortunately, government done right is not only "brute force."
I'm not terrified of anything, I am merely discussing what I think constitutes the proper place of government in a free society. Government is brute force; it is how we apply the legal use of force in our lives. That's nothing to be a afraid, of, but it is something to understand. It is what it is.
Behind every law is a gun.
There is nothing government can do that is NOT brute force.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
Actually the case I make is very similar to the one I make for gun control. Laws are for law abiding citizens. You can make a million laws and the ONLY people that will obey them are those that choose to obey them...period. You, as a human being, always HAVE a choice. But as with all choices that you make in life, regardless of what the choices are, there are consequences to choices, regardless of WHAT you specifically choose.
Criminals that want to have guns will always find a way to have guns. Laws making them illegal will not matter in the long run. And I suppose the same can be said of your "brute force" theory of making carrying health insurance a law. People will do what they want. So your solution is to abolish all laws? Is that the idea? See there is ONE good thing about having laws. You still have a choice, but....if you choose to murder someone...the law is going to hunt your ass down and take you off the street so that you're no longer a danger to other people. No....the law won't "stop you" from making your choice. But you choice will have some sort of consequences.
When did parents stop teaching responsibility for ones own actions? That's what I'd like to know. Because the blame game is all you see any more. What happened to ACCOUNTABILITY for your own actions and choices? I suppose you think that teaching your children through discipline is also "brute force?" And this is why so many unruly, out of control, anti-social, sociopathic, narcissistic individuals inhabit the planet.
If you want to have "freedom" and make your own choices.....then you will have to start taking responsibility for their outcome. That means not expecting others to pay for your choices. If you choose to have no insurance, then instead of hospitals passing on YOUR bills to ME....you should suffer the consequences of being sued to pay your OWN bill, rather than them raising MY cost of insurance, which I willingly pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way.
Now I can hear you saying, "THAT is what I'm SAYING!! I don't want to have to pay for someone ELSE!" No, that isn't what I'm saying. There ARE things that happen to people that are NOT within the realm of their choice. My son is a good example here. He had just turned 18, graduated from high school, and had started a job with a local company when he was stricken with a heart condition (he actually had it, but no one knew) and he required emergency surgery to fix his heart. He was no longer on our insurance, because he was 18 and no longer in school. He had no insurance yet, because he hadn't been at his job long enough yet to have it. He had not MADE any "bad choices." He was a victim of circumstance.
Medicaid (i.e. our state taxpayers taxes, including my own) PAID for his surgery to the tune of over 50 thousand dollars. He would never have been able to afford that, nor would we. Now....under your argument for not being "forced" to pay taxes for Medicaid, essentially, my son would have been what....doomed to die? For what? He made no bad choices that warranted that.
I can choose to get a high school diploma, or skip school and drop out. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to use birth control...or not. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to keep a firearm in my home...or not....both choices may have consequences. Consequences to a choice can bring good things, or bad things.
If you choose to not have insurance, that choice can bring many varied consequences....even now....while no "laws" exist requiring you to be responsible for your choice.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I agree with you TOTALLY. All sorts of people give. But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need. Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals. I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself." If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family. I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!
Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does. I agree. Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either. That's all I'm saying here.
You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.
If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.
Actually the case I make is very similar to the one I make for gun control. Laws are for law abiding citizens. You can make a million laws and the ONLY people that will obey them are those that choose to obey them...period. You, as a human being, always HAVE a choice. But as with all choices that you make in life, regardless of what the choices are, there are consequences to choices, regardless of WHAT you specifically choose.
Criminals that want to have guns will always find a way to have guns. Laws making them illegal will not matter in the long run. And I suppose the same can be said of your "brute force" theory of making carrying health insurance a law. People will do what they want. So your solution is to abolish all laws? Is that the idea? See there is ONE good thing about having laws. You still have a choice, but....if you choose to murder someone...the law is going to hunt your ass down and take you off the street so that you're no longer a danger to other people. No....the law won't "stop you" from making your choice. But you choice will have some sort of consequences.
When did parents stop teaching responsibility for ones own actions? That's what I'd like to know. Because the blame game is all you see any more. What happened to ACCOUNTABILITY for your own actions and choices? I suppose you think that teaching your children through discipline is also "brute force?" And this is why so many unruly, out of control, anti-social, sociopathic, narcissistic individuals inhabit the planet.
If you want to have "freedom" and make your own choices.....then you will have to start taking responsibility for their outcome. That means not expecting others to pay for your choices. If you choose to have no insurance, then instead of hospitals passing on YOUR bills to ME....you should suffer the consequences of being sued to pay your OWN bill, rather than them raising MY cost of insurance, which I willingly pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way.
Now I can hear you saying, "THAT is what I'm SAYING!! I don't want to have to pay for someone ELSE!" No, that isn't what I'm saying. There ARE things that happen to people that are NOT within the realm of their choice. My son is a good example here. He had just turned 18, graduated from high school, and had started a job with a local company when he was stricken with a heart condition (he actually had it, but no one knew) and he required emergency surgery to fix his heart. He was no longer on our insurance, because he was 18 and no longer in school. He had no insurance yet, because he hadn't been at his job long enough yet to have it. He had not MADE any "bad choices." He was a victim of circumstance.
Medicaid (i.e. our state taxpayers taxes, including my own) PAID for his surgery to the tune of over 50 thousand dollars. He would never have been able to afford that, nor would we. Now....under your argument for not being "forced" to pay taxes for Medicaid, essentially, my son would have been what....doomed to die? For what? He made no bad choices that warranted that.
I can choose to get a high school diploma, or skip school and drop out. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to use birth control...or not. Both choices have consequences. I can choose to keep a firearm in my home...or not....both choices may have consequences. Consequences to a choice can bring good things, or bad things.
If you choose to not have insurance, that choice can bring many varied consequences....even now....while no "laws" exist requiring you to be responsible for your choice.
Not sure why you posted all that, but none of it is even remotely a valid argument for forcing one group of people to pay for the health care of another.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich.
The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH. It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
Thirded.
Good, sound and humane reasons why the country that's a world leader should provide for its own citizens health.
It's very important simply because as the people go, the country goes. Better healthy, happy citizens means more production and increased economic production overall due to fit employees.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH. It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
So because it is your HEALTH (something magical, I guess) it is therefore your right to take it from others by brute force? Sorry, I don't believe that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.
Thirded.
Good, sound and humane reasons why the country that's a world leader should provide for its own citizens health.
It's very important simply because as the people go, the country goes. Better healthy, happy citizens means more production and increased economic production overall due to fit employees.
If you want to provide for the health care of others, nothing is stopping you. Nothing gives you the right to force others to do your bidding.
fishermage.blogspot.com