Originally posted by Fishermage 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.
Originally posted by Fishermage 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.
Originally posted by Fishermage 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.
What are you talking about? Take what from whom?
Please read the thread.
I've read the thread. Take my health care from others by force? I'm not being an ass or anything, I truly don't understand what you mean by that.
Originally posted by Fishermage 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.
What are you talking about? Take what from whom?
Please read the thread.
I've read the thread. Take my health care from others by force? I'm not being an ass or anything, I truly don't understand what you mean by that.
What's not to understand? If you choose to relegate something to the government, then you are by the very nature of what government is, requiring some people by force to pay for the health care of others. I believe that health care should be left to a system of voluntary exchanges, not brute force.
If you believe taht everyone is entitled to health care, then dedicate your life to healing your fellow man. That doesn't give you the right to force others to.
Originally posted by Fishermage What's not to understand? If you choose to relegate something to the government, then you are by the very nature of what government is, requiring some people by force to pay for the health care of others. I believe that health care should be left to a system of voluntary exchanges, not brute force. If you believe taht everyone is entitled to health care, then dedicate your life to healing your fellow man. That doesn't give you the right to force others to.
Ok I think it was your wording of "brute force" that threw me off.
It has nothing to do with wanting to heal my fellow man. But it does have everything to do with sick people not being able to afford coverage that could benefit them. Or people with pre-existing conditions getting screwed because companies don't want to take a financial risk on them. Financial being the key word here.
In my opinion, health care shouldn't be a business out to make money. As it stands right now, companies are losing a LOT of money because so many people go to the emergency room without coverage, and then shirk on paying the bill. If we taxed everyone for health care service, this wouldn't happen. I guess that's one good thing about it.
Overall it's a tough call. I can see one side of this whole health care mess, and I can see the other.
Originally posted by Fishermage What's not to understand? If you choose to relegate something to the government, then you are by the very nature of what government is, requiring some people by force to pay for the health care of others. I believe that health care should be left to a system of voluntary exchanges, not brute force. If you believe taht everyone is entitled to health care, then dedicate your life to healing your fellow man. That doesn't give you the right to force others to.
Ok I think it was your wording of "brute force" that threw me off.
It has nothing to do with wanting to heal my fellow man. But it does have everything to do with sick people not being able to afford coverage that could benefit them. Or people with pre-existing conditions getting screwed because companies don't want to take a financial risk on them. Financial being the key word here.
In my opinion, health care shouldn't be a business out to make money. As it stands right now, companies are losing a LOT of money because so many people go to the emergency room without coverage, and then shirk on paying the bill. If we taxed everyone for health care service, this wouldn't happen. I guess that's one good thing about it.
Overall it's a tough call. I can see one side of this whole health care mess, and I can see the other.
In human interaction, there are three ways they can transfer goods and services. One, the market, is voluntary. The second, the government, is force. The thinrd is charity.
I believe that only voluntary means are appropriate when it comes to health care. I see no valid justification that voluntary exchange should not be the appropriate means that health care is exchanged between people.
I still say better to leave to force those things for which force is required.
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.
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
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.
I think that is oversimplification and hyperbole. This statement makes all governments equivalent. The Nazi regime, the old USSR, Communist China, the Castro dictatorship, North Korea under Kim Jong Ill, are all the same as the countries of the EU, Canada, the US, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc., all "brute force".
It does not take into account representative democracy, where the government is by the consensus of the people AND includes rights for discrete and insular minorities.
Your statement only concentrates on how laws are enforced, and does not take into consideration how they come into being.
Brute force is by definition force without reason or justification. To substantiate your assertion that noththing the government can do is not brute force, you would have to show that all things "government" does is without reason. This may very well be the case in a Totalitarian regime, but that does not apply to all governments.
Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Fishermage
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.
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say. If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
Ok I think it was your wording of "brute force" that threw me off. It has nothing to do with wanting to heal my fellow man. But it does have everything to do with sick people not being able to afford coverage that could benefit them. Or people with pre-existing conditions getting screwed because companies don't want to take a financial risk on them. Financial being the key word here. In my opinion, health care shouldn't be a business out to make money. As it stands right now, companies are losing a LOT of money because so many people go to the emergency room without coverage, and then shirk on paying the bill. If we taxed everyone for health care service, this wouldn't happen. I guess that's one good thing about it. Overall it's a tough call. I can see one side of this whole health care mess, and I can see the other.
Actually, the problem with preexisting conditions runs much deeper than people only being denied coverage. Not that being denied coverage isn't bad enough on it's on, mind you.
See, when health care is a for-profit business, the only way to make profit is by taking in premiums above what is paid out in claims. So, the focus is to get the premiums, no matter what, just collect the premiums. When a claim is filed, most insurance companies reject it right off the bat. They first give the insured the option of paying out of pocket. Since the insured rarely do pay out of pocket, the insurance companies have to work feverishly to find some preexisting condition as a basis to deny the claim. Now, that may or may not have anything to do with the actual claim itself, but it is yet another tactic that is employed in the pursuit of profit. I mean, it's much cheaper to find some irrelevant stipulation than to pay for a surgery and some chemo, right? This practice is called "post-claims underwriting" (or rescission) and was recently addressed on capitol hill. www.youtube.com/watch
As I've said many times before, when there's a profit to be made from sick people, it pays to keep them sick. We don't have a health care system in the US, we have a sick care system. Doctors no longer have patients, they have customers.
Anyone who says " I don't want a bureaucrat standing between me and my doctor" obviously never had a claims administrator standing between them and their doctor. They're both red tape. The only real difference between the two is one is trying to get you the care you need and the other is trying to keep it from you.
Actually, the problem with preexisting conditions runs much deeper than people only being denied coverage. Not that being denied coverage isn't bad enough on it's on, mind you. See, when health care is a for-profit business, the only way to make profit is by taking in premiums above what is paid out in claims. So, the focus is to get the premiums, no matter what, just collect the premiums. When a claim is filed, most insurance companies reject it right off the bat. They first give the insured the option of paying out of pocket. Since the insured rarely do pay out of pocket, the insurance companies have to work feverishly to find some preexisting condition as a basis to deny the claim. Now, that may or may not have anything to do with the actual claim itself, but it is yet another tactic that is employed in the pursuit of profit. I mean, it's much cheaper to find some irrelevant stipulation than to pay for a surgery and some chemo, right? This practice is called "post-claims underwriting" (or rescission) and was recently addressed on capitol hill. www.youtube.com/watch
As I've said many times before, when there's a profit to be made from sick people, it pays to keep them sick. We don't have a health care system in the US, we have a sick care system. Doctors no longer have patients, they have customers.
Anyone who says " I don't want a bureaucrat standing between me and my doctor" obviously never had a claims administrator standing between them and their doctor. They're both red tape. The only real difference between the two is one is trying to get you the care you need and the other is trying to keep it from you.
Could you PLEASE stop posting facts and making sense about the health care industry? It only brings ad hominems in response. Please post only ridiculous, undefendable points so that the thread can progress at a steady pace.
Claim adjusters and pre-existing medical condition claims are NOT the problem with the healthcare industry. It's the fact that liberals want to pay for everyone's care NOW that caused all the problems to date since the inception of HMOs.
Could you PLEASE stop posting facts and making sense about the health care industry? It only brings ad hominems in response. Please post only ridiculous, undefendable points so that the thread can progress at a steady pace.
Claim adjusters and pre-existing medical condition claims are NOT the problem with the healthcare industry. It's the fact that liberals want to pay for everyone's care NOW that caused all the problems to date since the inception of HMOs.
Thank you.
Sorry, I'm just a brainwashed dem, trying to boost the views on Speaker Pelosi's YouTubes.
Could you PLEASE stop posting facts and making sense about the health care industry? It only brings ad hominems in response. Please post only ridiculous, undefendable points so that the thread can progress at a steady pace.
Claim adjusters and pre-existing medical condition claims are NOT the problem with the healthcare industry. It's the fact that liberals want to pay for everyone's care NOW that caused all the problems to date since the inception of HMOs.
Thank you.
Sorry, I'm just a brainwashed dem, trying to boost the views on Speaker Pelosi's YouTubes.
What were we talking about again? Legalizing pot?
I don' think Sarah Palin smokes pot, even though she did sound high when she announced she was quitting as Govenor of Alaska. I think the problem is the growing season for pot in Alaska is very short, because the winters are very long, although I believe pot was legal in Alaska at one time.
When a claim is filed, most insurance companies reject it right off the bat. They first give the insured the option of paying out of pocket. Since the insured rarely do pay out of pocket, the insurance companies have to work feverishly to find some preexisting condition as a basis to deny the claim. Now, that may or may not have anything to do with the actual claim itself, but it is yet another tactic that is employed in the pursuit of profit.
Anyone who says " I don't want a bureaucrat standing between me and my doctor" obviously never had a claims administrator standing between them and their doctor.
I have had this happen, actually. It didn't work for the insurance company...and it generally doesn't - particularly if one seeks legal counsel to force the insurance company to honor their contract with you. Interestingly, if forced to seek legal counsel in such a matter, the insurance company almost always ends up paying any legal fees you incur as well (at least in some states). Part of the reason for the ridiculous premiums is specifically because the insurance companies attempt to break their contract with the policy holder, forcing the policy holder to seek legal counsel and driving up the cost for all policy holders. Perhaps if the insurance companies kept good faith and honored the contracts that they have entered into, this would not be so much of a problem? Just tossing that out there.
Again, I have had a claims administrator standing between me and my doctor. I have also had Veteran's Administration employees and military personnel standing between me and my doctor. As someone who has 16 years of experience with what will surely become the nationalized healthcare Americans are ignorant (a word which means that an individual is uneducated or inexperienced in the subject and does not mean that Americans are "stupid" or "idiots") about, I would not wish such a system on my worst enemy, let alone the citizens of this nation. Again..."be careful what you wish for because you just might get it" applies here. Based on my personal experience and the experience of thousands of others who have vast experience with socialized medicine (because that is really what is being talked about here) within this nation and others, it is my strong opinion that the people who advocate a nationalized healthcare system/socialized medicine do not know what they are asking for, nor, apparently, are many of them interested in learning what it is, what it does and what it means before it is too late to change their minds.
"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 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.
Other than the fact your a citizen of a country, that is ruled by majority.
What the hell is this force? bidding? What the hell are you on about?
Tell me, what is the downside of having a healthily civilization? Other than saving money over time as health increases?
I can tell. you have never had an illness near to you, and you have never been poor. I am quite sure you are a young, white, middle-class dependent on someone else for your survival.
That's is the only type of person who would say such an ignorant thing.
---------- "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.
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.
Other than the fact your a citizen of a country, that is ruled by majority.
What the hell is this force? bidding? What the hell are you on about?
Tell me, what is the downside of having a healthily civilization? Other than saving money over time as health increases?
I can tell. you have never had an illness near to you, and you have never been poor. I am quite sure you are a young, white, middle-class dependent on someone else for your survival.
That's is the only type of person who would say such an ignorant thing.
So if the majority decide that we should institute a national religion, or bring back slavery, or abolish the first amendment, that's okay with you? If 51% of the people want anything, there are no rights that they can't take away?
We ae not a democracy. We are a limited, constitutional republic, and our constitution is supposed to set very narrow limited powers of our federal government. It's not just a case of "whatever the majority says, goes."
Everything we choose to have government do we do by force. Government is not a voluntary operation. Taxes are collected by force, laws are enforced at the point of a gun. That's what government IS. IT's force, and it is how we determine to use force in our lives.
I say we shouldn't use that force for anything other than protecting our rights -- because force is the only way tk protect those rights. Not so with health care or any other good or service. There is no downside to a "healthy civilization;" I jus do not see any valid justification for government to be the dominating factor in the health care market. I prefer voluntary actions to govern my medical choices, not brute force.
I have been poor. I have held the hands of the dying. Why can you not believe I have come to my beliefs through a process of reason and need to resoprt to ad hominem attacks just because I disagree with you?
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.
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
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.
I think that is oversimplification and hyperbole. This statement makes all governments equivalent. The Nazi regime, the old USSR, Communist China, the Castro dictatorship, North Korea under Kim Jong Ill, are all the same as the countries of the EU, Canada, the US, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc., all "brute force".
It does not take into account representative democracy, where the government is by the consensus of the people AND includes rights for discrete and insular minorities.
Your statement only concentrates on how laws are enforced, and does not take into consideration how they come into being.
Brute force is by definition force without reason or justification. To substantiate your assertion that noththing the government can do is not brute force, you would have to show that all things "government" does is without reason. This may very well be the case in a Totalitarian regime, but that does not apply to all governments.
No, it makes brute force brute force. Government is brute force, and the difference between those systems is precisely what I am talking about, The USSR, arbitrary brute force crowding out voluntary actions. Kim Jon Il, the same. France, more brute force than we have, plus you have to vote for the brute force (Democratic Socialism). America, going that way and I am against that.
Representative democracy (meaning modern liberal representative, or constitutional democracy) is using brute force within a clearly defined narrow set of parameters -- to protect the rights of the people.
I am not using "brute force" as you are meaning it -- nowhere in the definition is there a a lack of reason (it can be part of the definition but it is not a a necessary part). Self-defense is the use of brute force to defend one's own life. By brute force I merely mean "physical force" or coercion. If you would prefre another word so be it -- it all means the same thing, given the context I have drawn.
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.
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Keep calling it looting while completely ignoring all other taxes currently in place. Unless of course you favor no taxes at all.
And don't give me that "The current taxes are proper use of the government" crap. The proper use of government is to decide what is needed and what type of taxes to imply. There are no rules on what the government can do. The government is made up of citizens, and if the major majority of those citizens suddenly decide that they want to elect a king instead of a president and that his family will rule indefinately, it will be done.
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.
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Keep calling it looting while completely ignoring all other taxes currently in place. Unless of course you favor no taxes at all.
And don't give me that "The current taxes are proper use of the government" crap. The proper use of government is to decide what is needed and what type of taxes to imply. There are no rules on what the government can do. The government is made up of citizens, and if the major majority of those citizens suddenly decide that they want to elect a king instead of a president and that his family will rule indefinately, it will be done.
Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.
I'm not ignoring it at all; they are just not the subejct of this thread. The current taxes are NOT the proper use of government, and if you would like to discuss that -- no need to hijack -- start a new thread.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Basically he is saying that as long as he has a big enough gang, he can vote away any rights he chooses to. there are no core principles, no inalienable rights, none of that. It's all might makes right. The bigger gang wins.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
yet you believe that all we need is 51% of the people to say so, and black pople can be made property again, by vote.
Comments
What are you talking about? Take what from whom?
What are you talking about? Take what from whom?
Please read the thread.
fishermage.blogspot.com
What are you talking about? Take what from whom?
Please read the thread.
I've read the thread. Take my health care from others by force? I'm not being an ass or anything, I truly don't understand what you mean by that.
What are you talking about? Take what from whom?
Please read the thread.
I've read the thread. Take my health care from others by force? I'm not being an ass or anything, I truly don't understand what you mean by that.
What's not to understand? If you choose to relegate something to the government, then you are by the very nature of what government is, requiring some people by force to pay for the health care of others. I believe that health care should be left to a system of voluntary exchanges, not brute force.
If you believe taht everyone is entitled to health care, then dedicate your life to healing your fellow man. That doesn't give you the right to force others to.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Ok I think it was your wording of "brute force" that threw me off.
It has nothing to do with wanting to heal my fellow man. But it does have everything to do with sick people not being able to afford coverage that could benefit them. Or people with pre-existing conditions getting screwed because companies don't want to take a financial risk on them. Financial being the key word here.
In my opinion, health care shouldn't be a business out to make money. As it stands right now, companies are losing a LOT of money because so many people go to the emergency room without coverage, and then shirk on paying the bill. If we taxed everyone for health care service, this wouldn't happen. I guess that's one good thing about it.
Overall it's a tough call. I can see one side of this whole health care mess, and I can see the other.
Ok I think it was your wording of "brute force" that threw me off.
It has nothing to do with wanting to heal my fellow man. But it does have everything to do with sick people not being able to afford coverage that could benefit them. Or people with pre-existing conditions getting screwed because companies don't want to take a financial risk on them. Financial being the key word here.
In my opinion, health care shouldn't be a business out to make money. As it stands right now, companies are losing a LOT of money because so many people go to the emergency room without coverage, and then shirk on paying the bill. If we taxed everyone for health care service, this wouldn't happen. I guess that's one good thing about it.
Overall it's a tough call. I can see one side of this whole health care mess, and I can see the other.
In human interaction, there are three ways they can transfer goods and services. One, the market, is voluntary. The second, the government, is force. The thinrd is charity.
I believe that only voluntary means are appropriate when it comes to health care. I see no valid justification that voluntary exchange should not be the appropriate means that health care is exchanged between people.
I still say better to leave to force those things for which force is required.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I think that is oversimplification and hyperbole. This statement makes all governments equivalent. The Nazi regime, the old USSR, Communist China, the Castro dictatorship, North Korea under Kim Jong Ill, are all the same as the countries of the EU, Canada, the US, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc., all "brute force".
It does not take into account representative democracy, where the government is by the consensus of the people AND includes rights for discrete and insular minorities.
Your statement only concentrates on how laws are enforced, and does not take into consideration how they come into being.
Brute force is by definition force without reason or justification. To substantiate your assertion that noththing the government can do is not brute force, you would have to show that all things "government" does is without reason. This may very well be the case in a Totalitarian regime, but that does not apply to all governments.
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Actually, the problem with preexisting conditions runs much deeper than people only being denied coverage. Not that being denied coverage isn't bad enough on it's on, mind you.
See, when health care is a for-profit business, the only way to make profit is by taking in premiums above what is paid out in claims. So, the focus is to get the premiums, no matter what, just collect the premiums. When a claim is filed, most insurance companies reject it right off the bat. They first give the insured the option of paying out of pocket. Since the insured rarely do pay out of pocket, the insurance companies have to work feverishly to find some preexisting condition as a basis to deny the claim. Now, that may or may not have anything to do with the actual claim itself, but it is yet another tactic that is employed in the pursuit of profit. I mean, it's much cheaper to find some irrelevant stipulation than to pay for a surgery and some chemo, right? This practice is called "post-claims underwriting" (or rescission) and was recently addressed on capitol hill. www.youtube.com/watch
As I've said many times before, when there's a profit to be made from sick people, it pays to keep them sick. We don't have a health care system in the US, we have a sick care system. Doctors no longer have patients, they have customers.
Anyone who says " I don't want a bureaucrat standing between me and my doctor" obviously never had a claims administrator standing between them and their doctor. They're both red tape. The only real difference between the two is one is trying to get you the care you need and the other is trying to keep it from you.
Could you PLEASE stop posting facts and making sense about the health care industry? It only brings ad hominems in response. Please post only ridiculous, undefendable points so that the thread can progress at a steady pace.
Claim adjusters and pre-existing medical condition claims are NOT the problem with the healthcare industry. It's the fact that liberals want to pay for everyone's care NOW that caused all the problems to date since the inception of HMOs.
Thank you.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Sorry, I'm just a brainwashed dem, trying to boost the views on Speaker Pelosi's YouTubes.
What were we talking about again? Legalizing pot?
Sorry, I'm just a brainwashed dem, trying to boost the views on Speaker Pelosi's YouTubes.
What were we talking about again? Legalizing pot?
I don' think Sarah Palin smokes pot, even though she did sound high when she announced she was quitting as Govenor of Alaska. I think the problem is the growing season for pot in Alaska is very short, because the winters are very long, although I believe pot was legal in Alaska at one time.
I have had this happen, actually. It didn't work for the insurance company...and it generally doesn't - particularly if one seeks legal counsel to force the insurance company to honor their contract with you. Interestingly, if forced to seek legal counsel in such a matter, the insurance company almost always ends up paying any legal fees you incur as well (at least in some states). Part of the reason for the ridiculous premiums is specifically because the insurance companies attempt to break their contract with the policy holder, forcing the policy holder to seek legal counsel and driving up the cost for all policy holders. Perhaps if the insurance companies kept good faith and honored the contracts that they have entered into, this would not be so much of a problem? Just tossing that out there.
Again, I have had a claims administrator standing between me and my doctor. I have also had Veteran's Administration employees and military personnel standing between me and my doctor. As someone who has 16 years of experience with what will surely become the nationalized healthcare Americans are ignorant (a word which means that an individual is uneducated or inexperienced in the subject and does not mean that Americans are "stupid" or "idiots") about, I would not wish such a system on my worst enemy, let alone the citizens of this nation. Again..."be careful what you wish for because you just might get it" applies here. Based on my personal experience and the experience of thousands of others who have vast experience with socialized medicine (because that is really what is being talked about here) within this nation and others, it is my strong opinion that the people who advocate a nationalized healthcare system/socialized medicine do not know what they are asking for, nor, apparently, are many of them interested in learning what it is, what it does and what it means before it is too late to change their minds.
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
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.
Other than the fact your a citizen of a country, that is ruled by majority.
What the hell is this force? bidding? What the hell are you on about?
Tell me, what is the downside of having a healthily civilization? Other than saving money over time as health increases?
I can tell. you have never had an illness near to you, and you have never been poor. I am quite sure you are a young, white, middle-class dependent on someone else for your survival.
That's is the only type of person who would say such an ignorant thing.
----------
"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
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.
Other than the fact your a citizen of a country, that is ruled by majority.
What the hell is this force? bidding? What the hell are you on about?
Tell me, what is the downside of having a healthily civilization? Other than saving money over time as health increases?
I can tell. you have never had an illness near to you, and you have never been poor. I am quite sure you are a young, white, middle-class dependent on someone else for your survival.
That's is the only type of person who would say such an ignorant thing.
So if the majority decide that we should institute a national religion, or bring back slavery, or abolish the first amendment, that's okay with you? If 51% of the people want anything, there are no rights that they can't take away?
We ae not a democracy. We are a limited, constitutional republic, and our constitution is supposed to set very narrow limited powers of our federal government. It's not just a case of "whatever the majority says, goes."
Everything we choose to have government do we do by force. Government is not a voluntary operation. Taxes are collected by force, laws are enforced at the point of a gun. That's what government IS. IT's force, and it is how we determine to use force in our lives.
I say we shouldn't use that force for anything other than protecting our rights -- because force is the only way tk protect those rights. Not so with health care or any other good or service. There is no downside to a "healthy civilization;" I jus do not see any valid justification for government to be the dominating factor in the health care market. I prefer voluntary actions to govern my medical choices, not brute force.
I have been poor. I have held the hands of the dying. Why can you not believe I have come to my beliefs through a process of reason and need to resoprt to ad hominem attacks just because I disagree with you?
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I think that is oversimplification and hyperbole. This statement makes all governments equivalent. The Nazi regime, the old USSR, Communist China, the Castro dictatorship, North Korea under Kim Jong Ill, are all the same as the countries of the EU, Canada, the US, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc., all "brute force".
It does not take into account representative democracy, where the government is by the consensus of the people AND includes rights for discrete and insular minorities.
Your statement only concentrates on how laws are enforced, and does not take into consideration how they come into being.
Brute force is by definition force without reason or justification. To substantiate your assertion that noththing the government can do is not brute force, you would have to show that all things "government" does is without reason. This may very well be the case in a Totalitarian regime, but that does not apply to all governments.
No, it makes brute force brute force. Government is brute force, and the difference between those systems is precisely what I am talking about, The USSR, arbitrary brute force crowding out voluntary actions. Kim Jon Il, the same. France, more brute force than we have, plus you have to vote for the brute force (Democratic Socialism). America, going that way and I am against that.
Representative democracy (meaning modern liberal representative, or constitutional democracy) is using brute force within a clearly defined narrow set of parameters -- to protect the rights of the people.
I am not using "brute force" as you are meaning it -- nowhere in the definition is there a a lack of reason (it can be part of the definition but it is not a a necessary part). Self-defense is the use of brute force to defend one's own life. By brute force I merely mean "physical force" or coercion. If you would prefre another word so be it -- it all means the same thing, given the context I have drawn.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Keep calling it looting while completely ignoring all other taxes currently in place. Unless of course you favor no taxes at all.
And don't give me that "The current taxes are proper use of the government" crap. The proper use of government is to decide what is needed and what type of taxes to imply. There are no rules on what the government can do. The government is made up of citizens, and if the major majority of those citizens suddenly decide that they want to elect a king instead of a president and that his family will rule indefinately, it will be done.
Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.
The Official God FAQ
I'm a citizen. I don't work in Congress or do I sit on any commitees.
I have no power to force anyone to do my "bidding". I have no bidding at all.
I simply would like healthcare for all United States citizens. That's not an order.
You would like to use the government to force some to pay for teh health care of others. Instead of persuading people to care for one another, you are calling for the brute force of the state to compel people do do as you say.
If you would LIKE health care for all US citizens, get to work and start providing it for them. IF that's what you want. It seems that's not what you want though, what you WANT is to force others to do as you say.
No, I wouldn't "use" the government for anything. I would elect the politicians I like to represent my interest in Congress. When they push a bill I like, I will support it. When they push one I don't, I will call their office. That is what being a citizen is all about. I have no power other than my vote and my voice. I don't "make" people do anything; I think you give me far too much credit.
You do the same thing with your vote, so I have no idea what you've been going on about. That's what citizens do.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Keep calling it looting while completely ignoring all other taxes currently in place. Unless of course you favor no taxes at all.
And don't give me that "The current taxes are proper use of the government" crap. The proper use of government is to decide what is needed and what type of taxes to imply. There are no rules on what the government can do. The government is made up of citizens, and if the major majority of those citizens suddenly decide that they want to elect a king instead of a president and that his family will rule indefinately, it will be done.
Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.
I'm not ignoring it at all; they are just not the subejct of this thread. The current taxes are NOT the proper use of government, and if you would like to discuss that -- no need to hijack -- start a new thread.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Basically he is saying that as long as he has a big enough gang, he can vote away any rights he chooses to. there are no core principles, no inalienable rights, none of that. It's all might makes right. The bigger gang wins.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
The Official God FAQ
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
yet you believe that all we need is 51% of the people to say so, and black pople can be made property again, by vote.
fishermage.blogspot.com