Socialism One and All!

[DevilMan]

No, but civilized society does not let the less fortunate die because they don't have the money to afford to live.

We have law enforcement to protect you from being robbed at gunpoint from those less fortunate than you. But who protects the less fortunate from hard times. If you are sick, quite often you don't have the means to work to pay for medical.

When those less fortunate have nothing left to live for or do not get equal treatment because of financial status, society breaks down. It causes an increase in crime. If those less fortunate have no means to earn what they need to live, they will take it, because it is survival. We are quick to spend money on policing and jails, but if we spent more on education and health, there wouldn't be near as much crime to start with, and everyone would be much happier and safer.

If everyone felt that they didn't want to pay for something everyone else uses but they didn't, then there wouldn't be any infrastructure at all. You wouldn't have the nice paved roads, or an education system, or law enforcement, or a health infrastructure.

We might as well go back 1000 years when every little group had their own little fort in the woods, but no taxes. At least even then, they took care of their sick and dying.

If those that chose to rob lost a hand each time they were caught, how many times do you think they would hold a gun to someone?

If those that killed were put to death within the 365 day period following their conviction how many times do you think they would do it?

My FREEDOM does not mean that my work, labor, earnings, property, etc can be taken by YOUR FREEDOM because you choose not to work/earn/maintain it.

All of you that are for this. How much money do you ever donate to ANYONE? How much stuff have you EVER given away to those less fortunate? How much have you ever given to a bum on the street begging? Fine you don't want to give money because they'll go buy booze or smokes or crack or meth... How many times have you given them a burger or fries or anything else? HOW MANY? So you don't want to "foster their habit"... how many times have you gone out of your way to donate a toy for a child at Christmas? How much have you willingly put in the bucket that the Salvation Army workers man during the holidays? How much PB gear have you donated to a kid to get him on the field in safer conditions?

So you think it's fine that you don't do any of this, but that it's alright for the government to come and do it for you BECAUSE they will be doing it to EVERYONE equally. Is that how it works???

Again, the fact is, the system is broken. How about this.... And trust me I'm welcome to hard data if ya have it... You see, I can only go on what I've heard... Who here has been in the hospital and has been issued any more of medication and have kept track of the cost of it? Please if ya have numbers put em up. I don't. I don't go to hospitals. So there has been no argument about how much a hospital will charge for aspirin. How many pills in a bottle? Say 100. they charge how much? say even as low as $1... I think it's closer to $5 but we'll stick at $1. that's $100 bucks for a bottle of aspirin. hmmmm or I can go to walgreens, walmart, 711, or the gas station and buy a bottle of 100 for how much? lets say $5. So that's all fair right??? sure it is... why??? Because the hospital charges the cost to the insurance company right? the insurance pays it right? So no big deal right? so none of you gave a damn about that I'm sure. so that shows a profit of $95 for a bottle of aspirin. NOW, how many of you understand what BULK BUYING means? do you really think that the hospital really pays $1 a pill for each one of them???? Come on now!

So the issue isn't going to be resolved by giving control to the gov.... It's going to be resolved by punishing those that are blatantly abusing the system. By making so the insurance companies can't raise your prices just because you use the service, and by making sure the doctors and hospitals don't rape the insurance companies. Do I understand how much a cat scan machine can cost. Yes I can. Do I understand what "return on the investment" works? YES I DO. Do I understand how when people KNOW you have money they like to charge a little more? YES I DO. Why is an MRI or XRay at the emergency room with no insurance going to cost you $100 without insurance, but if you have insurance, it'll be billed to the company at $500???? WHY??? It's called ABUSE!!!! It's called GREED! Why don't hospitals have a set fee at the door? XRay $100, Cat Scan $500, EKG $500, Tonsilectomy $100??? WHY NOT??? I mean wouldn't that be feasible? Sure there are variations to treatment, but wouldn't it be more intelligent to try and solidify a proper regulatory system to level out the system? I mean really? Is there a reason there are 2 prices for treatment?

DM

[DevilMan]

Two words: Private Charity.

Private Charity is still vastly more helpful to the poor and needy. I donate money regularly and will always give cash I have available to the homeless.

Society does not give you the right to rob me. Government was built to defend our freedoms, not to provide equality. Not only is it morally flawed to force charity on someone, but it is also impractical. Our Welfare system absorbs 60% of the money that goes into it. That means that only 40% of the money meant to reach the needy does. Any charity running in such a fashion would quickly lose it's donors. Government should always be considered the last resort when it comes to any problem. Government is inefficient, full of incompetency, and self perpetuating. They will never cease to find more ways to spend more money, bureaucracy will never willingly shrink, it only seeks to grow.

Trust me, I don't rely on law enforcement to protect me, and you are crazy if you do. They are a response to crime, not a prevention. There is no way for the government to prevent crime look at the most government controlled/monitored cities in the world like Tokyo and London, they still have horrible crime issues. Thats why I have several firearms, and my family does what it can to protect themselves.

That argument aside, paying taxes for law enforcement, is not a violation of our social compact. As it is a power I personally possess, I have the right to protect myself from those who would violate my rights to Life, Liberty, Property. You do not have the individual right to go into another man's home and steal from him no matter your need. Therefore you cannot delegate that power to government. Government cannot possess any rights that you do not individually possess.

Not only is government healthcare, impractical & inefficient as anything can be, but it is also a violation of our social contract.

Your words fall on deaf and misled ears my friend.

They don't understand that the deficit is because they keep trying to find ways to make themselves needed. They aren't. Laws are laws. Do any of you realize exactly how many traffic laws there are on the books for any one state? Do you know that if you were to enforce those laws ALONE with a fine of $100 per violation that the national debt would cure itself in about 5 years? Do you know the law on lane changing? What about tire tread depth? What bout signaling? What about keeping to the right lane unless passing? what about lights on when raining? Those laws alone if enforced would not only raise millions of dollars, but they would make this nation more safe for all. Why can auto makers make cars that MUST have seat belts in them. MUST have lights and windshields. Some have remote security, some have OnStar. And yet there seems to be incompetence in the whole deal of if you turn your windshield wipers on, your lights don't come on. Why is that do ya think?

What's the relevance to this??? It's the fact that there are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS other ways to make this nation great again. This is NOT one of them.

DM

[DevilMan]

Can anyone here give me a logical and realistic reason as to why smoking a cigarette, a pipe, a cigar, pot, a hookah or any apparatus of burning a material and inhaling the smoke or fumes is good for you?

Can anyone tell us how SAFE it is?

I'm sorry, but if MY TAXES are going to go to YOUR healthcare, then I think ANYTHING hazardous should be removed from the publics ability to consume. Your meals shall be rationed and you shall be allowed no more than what it is found that your body needs through extensive studies of your caloric intake.

You shall be put on an exercise regimen so that you remain in tip top health.

You shall be restricted from doing any activity that can result in injury or death and those activities shall be decided upon by a panel of 'experts'. Some activities up for ban are: Football, Running, Bicycling, Motorcycling, Rock Climbing, Scuba Diving, Sky Diving, Driving, Walking, Showering, Sex (either with or without a partner), Swimming, Sunbathing, Consumption of Alcohol, Paintball, Fishing, Hunting, Putting up a Christmas tree. This is the preliminary list. It is to be updated and edited as deemed necessary.

Please see this list ~> http://health.howstuffworks.com/15-m...ted-states.htm and note that anything that can be connected as a contributing factor to this list shall be banned as well.

Additionally anyone that is put for any reason into a vegetative state shall be kept on life support indefinitely regardless of the wants and desires of the family and any living will that may be in existence for such occurences.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter as we are only looking out for YOUR health and well-being in this glorious world.

That is all.

DM

[chafnerjr]

I love this thread The only thing I'd change in that last remark DM is that you wouldn't be kept in a vegetative state as you're quality of life sure would not justify the expense to the american taxpayer

Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality. Would it be great if everyone had food, clothing, education, healthcare, retirement, ect for free? Sure it would, it's just NOT possible. Someone has to work for it somewhere along the lines. Should we perhaps regress to slavery? I don't know how else you all propose to afford even the items currently passed forgetting anything else. Our Nat. deficit is about to pass our GDP. Do you understand the consequences of that? Do you really?

[LK-13]

so if I understand all of you that have posted in this thread,
when some lab in the US has a breach and a pathogen like Mad-SARS-Bovine-Pox-West Avian-Swine-Nile-Anthrax-Zombie-Post-Pre-Bubonic-Undergrad-E-boli-painful rectal Paris Hilton itch-flu virus disease, runs rampant through your population;
you posters here in this thread would rather we respect your freedoms and let you suffer and die
rather that treat your illness with some Socialist vaccine or something...

in fact we should really honor "THE AMERICAN WAY" and shoot people if they sneeze!
Any commie pinko that sneezes is actually a "Terrorist" using a biological pneumatic delivery system to spread bio-toxins into the general population!
A 10 gage Solid Shot Deer Slug into the back of the head at point blank range will keep the population safe!
it is your duty as an AMERIKKKAN to shoot anyone that dare sneeze, cough, fart or hick-up in public or an place where children maybe put at risk!
you have your well armed private militas, deploy! people deploy!
hunt down and exterminate these commie pinko sicko's before we all are infected with Mad-SARS-Bovine-Pox-West Avian-Swine-Nile-Anthrax-Zombie-Post-Pre-Bubonic-Undergrad-E-boli-painful rectal Paris Hilton itch-flu virus disease!!

[chafnerjr]

[athomas]

Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality.

I'm glad your finally realizing I am talking about logic and freedom.

I understand where you are coming from, but the amount of people that leach off the system is actually very small. If they are given a chance to provide for themselves, most do. By taking the burden of survival off most people, they are free to go out and try to earn a living without fear that they will lose whatever social assistance they have now.

As for making things like smoking, and alcohol being restricted items? Tax them at a higher rate so that by using them you pay for the extra costs on the health care system that they bring. I believe the same should be done for fuel so that people are forced to find vehicles that are less toxic. You can't tax everything and you can't restrict everything and everybody. That is the basic freedom we enjoy. There is a price for that, and I personally don't mind paying my share and a little more to cover those less fortunate than myself. I pay a hefty amount of taxes every year through income tax and sales tax, and it really doesn't bother me, because I have a lot of freedom.

[chafnerjr]

I think that you're misreading my blurbs on here. Perhaps I'm a bit too wordy and wandering in my rants so I'll keep this concise. Not to be rude, but my posts stretch over many topics.

My point here is that the gov should NOT have the right to do so. Taxation should NEVER be use to penalize citizens. ONLY to raise funds as appropriated in article 1 of the constitution. Beyond that the 10th amendment NEEDS to be followed for ONCE!



P.S. As for taxing tobacco and alcohol to pay for their treatment... check your tax's. It's already being done. Actually in my state (NH) Tobacco tax's pay for health insurance for needy women and children. You may or may not know that I am FOR this program, but against the Federal plan. I'd be interested if you can tell why based on my previous statements. It would be even more interesting if you could figure out why I'm against taxing tobacco for this even though I'm for the program. Perhaps you'll see my version of idealism.

[LK-13]

I think that you're misreading my blurbs on here. Perhaps I'm a bit too wordy and wandering in my rants so I'll keep this concise. Not to be rude, but my posts stretch over many topics.

My point here is that the gov should NOT have the right to do so. Taxation should NEVER be use to penalize citizens. ONLY to raise funds as appropriated in article 1 of the constitution.

you mean like when income tax was introduced in Canada and The United States of America as a "TEMPORARY MEASURE TO ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL DEBT CREATED BY WORLD WAR ONE"...

The Income Tax in America: a Brief History

[chafnerjr]

Actually yes. To add to your point the first federal income tax was added after WWII for the same reason. While we may not have liked it, it was certainly constitutional. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the Federal Government has the right to collect such taxes to pay for it's debts. We could of course legally repeal them, but new taxes would be voted upon by our legislature to make up of the difference on the same grounds. Like it or not we have to pay for the things we have and the things we do. No one is debating that so far as I can tell.

[Lohman446]

I love this thread The only thing I'd change in that last remark DM is that you wouldn't be kept in a vegetative state as you're quality of life sure would not justify the expense to the american taxpayer

Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality. Would it be great if everyone had food, clothing, education, healthcare, retirement, ect for free? Sure it would, it's just NOT possible. Someone has to work for it somewhere along the lines. Should we perhaps regress to slavery? I don't know how else you all propose to afford even the items currently passed forgetting anything else. Our Nat. deficit is about to pass our GDP. Do you understand the consequences of that? Do you really?

Way to keep an open mind. Even if one agreed with what you say extreme zealotism makes people distance themselves from you. In a democracy that turns you into what can be easily labeled a "vocal minority" and ignored.

[chafnerjr]

Way to keep an open mind. Even if one agreed with what you say extreme zealotism makes people distance themselves from you. In a democracy that turns you into what can be easily labeled a "vocal minority" and ignored.

well yes... but it was late and I bit into the conservative line just a little bit. Tit for tat I guess. In any event to clarify: The first line was adding to DM's sarcasm and the second was poking at a few of the arguments presented a few post earlier and I forgot to mention which ones. Lost track of context I suppose. Thanks for calling me on it. i.e. not left vs right, just what I though was a sensible approach vs. an idealogical one. A couple of posts were what I though of as pretty ludicrous so I fell in line.

I write here assuming that we're all debating as friendly mag lovers moving democracy forward. What I find to be a bit interesting in this thread is that: For the most part, we all mostly agree on several principles, and differ greatly on how it should be done. Somehow there's always finger pointing at the other side saying some pretty outlandish things. I've had people bring up things like "so your saying we shouldn't have any police or so on because of an unrelated post regarding the current healthcare funding.

P.S> most people ranting on the internet should be considered the vocal minority.

P.P.S> is it strange for one to demand we follow our constitution and get called a zealous? If that's the case then I sir am an extremist!

[dre1919]

Well, I for one am a proponent of health care reform. Do I think Obama's plan is foolproof? Hell no. But, I do believe we as a nation need to go forth and copy the socialized medicine systems in place in countries like France, Britain and Spain. The health care system we have in place is ridiculous. Just because we "think" we have "choices" doesn't mean we really do. Believe me, money rules everything in our current system and that is completely wrong. I know some people do not believe the government should tell people who to see as a physician, or how to go about doing it. But, that is better than not being able to afford treatment or having to go bankrupt because medical bills send you over the brink financially. My biggest issue with Obamacare is that the government of the United States designed and oversaw the first broken system, so why trust it to create a new one?

The one thing you cannot put a price tag on is your health and yet in this country, we do. If you think socialized medicine is communism, try having $70,000 worth of medical debt and calling it "freedom to choose".

-dre

[DevilMan]

Good to see you around again Dre... how are things with you? I still don't have my tat work all done yet.

Anyway, if you will notice I agree with you on how it has been done. I don't think the US gov is capable of running it properly, economically, beneficially, or productively.

Why instead can there not be rules and regulations pushed through the system that mandates a price for services? You can have 2 people go in for the same broken bone and get the same treatment, with the same follow up, and yet they can receive two totally different bills for the services. Why is that?

See the US gov seems to be so gung ho about everything, but yet they can't even standardize a few rules/laws to apply across the board. And one of the biggest opponents to this system is the constitutionality *sp?* (is it a word?) It does clearly state that it is illegal for the gov to push rules and regs on it's people and yet be allowed to maintain it's own rules independently. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. They have abused this system long enough. Do you know how much you make the rest of your life after serving as little as 1 term? Do you know that you don't pay into SS while you serve? Why is that? Is it because you are a federal employee and so your taxes go to pay yourself, so you may as well keep them from the start?? NO! If it was that way, then any and every person of the US Military would not have to pay, and yet they do.

Reform needed? YES! But there needs to be a logical, well thought out way to implement it. And going against the desires of the majority of the populace, AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTION is NOT the way to do it.

That's what people are up in arms about. I don't think there is a single person on the opposing side that says that healthcare in this country is 100% hunky dory!!!! But they are in agreement that this is NOT the way to go about fixing it.

DM

[Lohman446]

well yes... but it was late and I bit into the conservative line just a little bit. Tit for tat I guess. In any event to clarify: The first line was adding to DM's sarcasm and the second was poking at a few of the arguments presented a few post earlier and I forgot to mention which ones. Lost track of context I suppose. Thanks for calling me on it. i.e. not left vs right, just what I though was a sensible approach vs. an idealogical one. A couple of posts were what I though of as pretty ludicrous so I fell in line.

I write here assuming that we're all debating as friendly mag lovers moving democracy forward. What I find to be a bit interesting in this thread is that: For the most part, we all mostly agree on several principles, and differ greatly on how it should be done. Somehow there's always finger pointing at the other side saying some pretty outlandish things. I've had people bring up things like "so your saying we shouldn't have any police or so on because of an unrelated post regarding the current healthcare funding.

P.S> most people ranting on the internet should be considered the vocal minority.

P.P.S> is it strange for one to demand we follow our constitution and get called a zealous? If that's the case then I sir am an extremist!

Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality.

Thats zealotism, instantly dismissing any viewpoint contrary to yours as illogical is zealotism. It also does not help on have open and honest communication.

As to "its unconstitutional"... again, you are about a century too late with that argument. Hopefully healthcare was the "tipping point" and not just the reason for the rant.