Looks like America WILL have National Health Care after tonight

[conv3rsion]

I'm going to throw this out there and see what people think about it.

I'm pretty socially liberal. I don't like the government controlling many specific aspects of people's lives. I would be considered pro choice in that I don't think abortion should be made illegal, although I really detest the act itself.

I really hated the fact that my tax dollars were being used to fund the war in Iraq. I don't have a choice in whether I pay taxes, and while I'm obviously not going to agree with many uses of my tax dollars, there comes a point where things go from wasteful to offensive and even (imho) immoral.

Personally I don't want federal dollars going to pay for health insurance policies that cover abortions (something I believe is an elective surgery). More strongly though, I don't feel like people who are staunchly pro life and who have serious moral objections to abortion should be forced through taxation to effectively subsidize it. Similarly to how I hated knowing that some of my work was going to fund a war that I was morally opposed to.

I'm happy with the compromise that was met over the abortion issues with the healhcare plan, but I feel like a lot of liberals thought it was totally ridiculous that some people on the left were willing to slow the progress of this bill for the abortion issue. I completely disgree with those liberals and I think in my head about how pissed the iraq made me, and I don't understand why a lot of liberals don't see this like I do, after having just gone through being forced to pay for something like that.

What are your thoughts wf?

TL;DR - I am glad the abortion issue got settled with the healthcare bill and I am mystified why many liberals couldn't relate to people's anger with having to pay for insurance policies that would have covered abortions.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

That's how his statement read to me. He said that markets lead to misery.

Social welfare is a societal response to human misery. If the markets could provide an adequate solution to that, wouldn't it have done so, and thereby preempted the need for society to respond?

Please name some of the basic necessities that should be available to all, regardless of production, merit or effort.

I think society has a responsibility to provide for its members at a basic level, regardless of their ability to provide for themselves. Allowing people to be sick or hungry when as a society we can easily provide these things is not acceptable, IMO. The wealth of a society should be the wealth of all its members. Not equally, mind you - effort and productivity still warrant reward - but at a basic level, people should have their needs met. Spread the wealth around a little. It's immoral not to.

Why? If the market can't provide basic necessities, why would you use it to provide more complicated and higher order goods?

I didn't say the market can't provide basic necessities. The point is, not everyone can afford those necessities. Get it? A necessity is by definition necessary; i.e, it is not optional. Everyone needs it, but not everyone is able to get it. The market fails, society steps in to fill the gap.

 

[Human]

Regardless of the health care bill, I find it odd that Wicked Fire takes another opportunity to take paltry hits against one another's political beliefs. You're not changing anyone's mind complaining about what someone else is saying.

And thusly, my opinion is: Robin Hood Syndrome is a horrible idea. Take from the insured to give to the uninsured? I think not.

I'm all for socialism in America, but the healthcare system, in the state it was already in, that was a terrible choice to start out with. I can see the Cabinet grabbing handfuls of taxpayer dollars and hurriedly flushing it down the Capitol bathroom's toilets.

And it sucks.

PS: Sonny Forelli said something a few pages back about how, until you have a disease such as cancer, you will have no idea how this bill will impact your life. My mom is scared shitless.

 

[Rusky]

I'm an immigrant in this country. I just hope my child can have the same opportunity as I have. I loved the old school Americans, this is the only county with a dream attached to its name. We didnt have a Russian Dream, and I've never heard of a UK, or a Canadian dream. I'm lucky for ending up in USA.
But I have a feeling this dream is being taken away day after day. Dont you people understand the govermetn doenst know how to run shit.
Social Security, Public Schools, Post Office, Fannie Mae, they have a great track record. I'm pretty sure the track record isnt going to change. They make everything worse, and never seen to have enough money.

 

[Trademark]

I am curious.

A few of you believe in the concept of voluntary contracts, commodity-based currency, and private property. From these three things, it's a reasonable extrapolation that you believe in the concept of personal sovereignty. A further extension would presume you believe no single person has the right to infringe upon the personal sovereignty of any other person.

Given this, why do you vote?

It seems akin to an anarcho-capitalist voluntarily becoming an IRS agent.

 

[popeye]

I'm going to throw this out there and see what people think about it.

I'm pretty socially liberal. I don't like the government controlling many specific aspects of people's lives. I would be considered pro choice in that I don't think abortion should be made illegal, although I really detest the act itself.

I really hated the fact that my tax dollars were being used to fund the war in Iraq. I don't have a choice in whether I pay taxes, and while I'm obviously not going to agree with many uses of my tax dollars, there comes a point where things go from wasteful to offensive and even (imho) immoral.

Personally I don't want federal dollars going to pay for health insurance policies that cover abortions (something I believe is an elective surgery). More strongly though, I don't feel like people who are staunchly pro life and who have serious moral objections to abortion should be forced through taxation to effectively subsidize it. Similarly to how I hated knowing that some of my work was going to fund a war that I was morally opposed to.

I'm happy with the compromise that was met over the abortion issues with the healhcare plan, but I feel like a lot of liberals thought it was totally ridiculous that some people on the left were willing to slow the progress of this bill for the abortion issue. I completely disgree with those liberals and I think in my head about how pissed the iraq made me, and I don't understand why a lot of liberals don't see this like I do, after having just gone through being forced to pay for something like that.

What are your thoughts wf?

TL;DR - I am glad the abortion issue got settled with the healthcare bill and I am mystified why many liberals couldn't relate to people's anger with having to pay for insurance policies that would have covered abortions.

The abortion issue didn't get settled. Stupac, his posse and all the democractic fake pro-lifers got played by BO. An executive order will not trump the law written into the bill. That order will crash and burn in the courts and BO and his band of thieves know it.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

I'm an immigrant in this country. I just hope my child can have the same opportunity as I have. I loved the old school Americans, this is the only county with a dream attached to its name. We didnt have a Russian Dream, and I've never heard of a UK, or a Canadian dream. I'm lucky for ending up in USA.
But I have a feeling this dream is being taken away day after day. Dont you people understand the govermetn doenst know how to run shit.
Social Security, Public Schools, Post Office, Fannie Mae, they have a great track record. I'm pretty sure the track record isnt going to change. They make everything worse, and never seen to have enough money.

+Rep

Welcome to our country. We are grateful you decided to come here and pursue these dreams with us.
I only wish we could have kept the dream alive for you.

 

[guerilla]

Social welfare is a societal response to human misery. If the markets could provide an adequate solution to that, wouldn't it have done so, and thereby preempted the need for society to respond?

This line of reasoning is flawed.

Example;

If government could cure poverty, wouldn't it have already done so?

I think society has a responsibility to provide for its members at a basic level, regardless of their ability to provide for themselves. Allowing people to be sick or hungry when as a society we can easily provide these things is not acceptable, IMO. The wealth of a society should be the wealth of all its members. Not equally, mind you - effort and productivity still warrant reward - but at a basic level, people should have their needs met. Spread the wealth around a little. It's immoral not to.

I asked you to name the specific basic necessities. Can you do that please?

I didn't say the market can't provide basic necessities. The point is, not everyone can afford those necessities. Get it? A necessity is by definition necessary; i.e, it is not optional. Everyone needs it, but not everyone is able to get it. The market fails, society steps in to fill the gap.

At the beginning of this paragraph, you claim that you didn't say the market couldn't do it, but by the end of the paragraph, you are in fact claiming the market fails.

So which is it? Does the market fail to provide basic necessities or not?

You also brought up something else. Something important. Not everyone can afford the necessities. Purchasing power is based on production. So if people cannot afford to buy things (like brain transplants, or trips to Jupiter) does that mean the market failed, or there is not currently enough production to achieve that end?

If there is not enough production to bring costs down, then just making costs lower by government fiat (price fixing) will create shortages. Would you agree this is sound supply and demand theory?

 

[dangregory]

Still not sure if the current bill even allows for coverage of abortion (euphemistic term "D & C") when the life of the mother is endangered. Because that SHOULD be covered since it's rather common for women to have a baby that dies in utero and find that their body has not expelled the dead tissue after a certain time, which leads to infection and can kill the mother very rapidly if a "D & C" isn't done.

When the extremists insist on a "no abortion ever" stance they are showing their medical ignorance, as well as their extreme hatred of women.

Then of course there are times when something horrible goes wrong with a live baby, and for it to live, the mother would have to die. But that's okay with the extremists. No abortion ever for them. They'd rather their womenfolk die. Even though, in that type of circumstance, usually the baby has a high chance of being horribly ill and/or deformed and wouldn't last long outside the womb, anyway.

We have become a pro-natalist society, policy-wise, and a "protect the sovereignty of women's reproductive choices" society, action wise. One third of American women will get an abortion at some point in their lives. FACT.

Extremists can't wrap their brains around that and keep pretending that it isn't true. Worse yet, pretending that they can make the facts go away. Women will still be seeking abortions, it will just be back alley, dangerous ones with high chances of fatality and/or permanently infertility due to scarring if abortion restrictions continue in this country.

And right wingers blowing up well-respected abortion providers? That's a restriction. Picketing clinics to fuck with women's minds, when no woman makes the decision to have an abortion lightly, and they deserve to have privacy when this most difficult of medical procedures is faced? That's a restriction.

This whole debate about it is so anti-women. ONE THIRD OF WOMEN, guys, get abortions. Just because a) your mom didn't tell you about the ones she had before you were born and b) your girlfriends or wives haven't told you about the one they had, or the ones their friends have had, does not mean these facts are wrong.

We men need to get to grips with the facts. It helps lend clarity to these issues.

PS Sarah Palin in her autobiography writes about having at least one "D & C" when her baby died in utero and wasn't expelled. And yet, she takes an anti-abortion stance at the same time. So it's okay for her, not for anybody else. How do women like that handle putting their makeup in the morning since they're so fucking two-faced? I don't get it.

 

[esomark]

The Path To The Welfare State (England)​

The negative ideas of the 20th century took away the people's understanding of the worth of the individual soul. If man were merely an animal, then he would not need to be treated as a responsible individual. Society, rather than the individual, became the focus of attention of the English public.

Social planners rationalized that for the good of society, individual ambitions and convictions might have to be sacrificed (sound familiar to the earlier part of this century in the US?) The novelist George Orwell (1903-1950) graphically described the dangers of this attitude and thought process in his novels 1984, which predicted the grim future of English Socialism, and Animal Farm, a brilliant satire on the realities of Communism.

Many writers hastened England's decay by using their talents to attack and Christianity and promote the materialism thought the redistribution of wealth. George Bernard Shaw and H.G Wells, for instance, were prominent members of the Fabian Society of Socialists, and they dedicated their creative abilities to socialist and anti-Christian causes. They rejected the idea that responsible individuals are what makes society good and called for direct government intervention in economic affairs to remove economic inequality.

The Fabian Society played a large part in the formation of the Labour Party, which began shortly after the turn of the twentieth century.

During the Victorian Era (the era just before the 20th century era), the greatest reforms in England had been brought about by concerned individuals who took upon themselves the responsibility of helping people who were in need. The political reformers at the end of the nineteenth century had concerned themselves with reforms toward political freedom and freedom of thought and speech and had carefully refrained from intervening in the private affairs of individuals and families. They had realized that if the government assumes the individuals responsibilities, the light of true freedom will be dimmed.

The YMCA and The Salvation Army are just a few of the programs that have stood the test of time. Started by individual that cared, not by a heat-less big government.

As the twentieth centruy dawned, powerful forces were at work to bring about a different kind of reform.

The first changes were made in the schools. In Victorian England (just a few decades before), education had been viewed as a way to train the individual to use his own, unique abilities to help his fellow man and succeed in whichever way he so chose. Every student was different so why teach them all in the same way?

Educators aimed at developing the ability, improving the habits, and forming the character of the individual so that he could conform to his chosen career. The new philosophies of the twentieth century called for a new philosophy towards education. Education came to be viewed as the most advanced phase of the evolutionary process; the new goal of education was to adjust the individual to his environment and to control the child for the sake of welfare and society. To teach everyone in the same way. Curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods were revised to fit this goal.

In 1899, a centralized Board of Education was created. In 1902, the Balfour Education Act was passed, despite vigorous protests by groups. The act reorganized the administration of secondary and elementary schools and laid the foundations for a national system of secondary education (public schools). Most important, it gave tax money to the voluntary schools and brought them under the control of the public education authorities.

From this time on, the central government became increasingly involved in education, and traditional education was looked down upon as "old-fashioned". An opening worship ceremony and religious instruction were required in all tax-aided schools, but as the century progressed and Humanism became commonplace this was forced to stop. Academic standards deteriorated to levels never before imaginable in these newly formed "public" schools.

Today, only about 5% of England's schools are completely independent of the government. The most famous of these, the private high schools that are called public schools in England (examples would be Eton, Harrow, and Winchester), have traditionally emphasized character, discipline, and high scholarship, and they have turned out a high percentage of Britain's leaders (including the last two).

In recent years, attempts have been made by the government to incorporate these schools into the government system.

End​

Who the fuck are you? Glenn Beck? I almost put one of those "not sure if serious" images up. Bloody hell I've never read such unbelievable bollocks in my fucking life. Please tell me, where did you get this from? Almost every sentence is a completely ridiculous statement, with no evidence to back it up. This isn't history, this is just some guy (probably Glenn Beck) making this shit up as he goes.

I don't even know where to start to point out all the huge errors in this account. I almost feel sick that anyone would ever read this and agree/believe it. Please don't take this as history, I beg you.

Read some real history

Victorian era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the early Victorian era over 50% of children grew up without learning to read and write. This didn't change until the government made them go to school at least until they were 12.

"The first changes were made in the schools. In Victorian England (just a few decades before), education had been viewed as a way to train the individual to use his own, unique abilities to help his fellow man and succeed in whichever way he so chose. Every student was different so why teach them all in the same way?"

I really don't understand, I simply find it impossible to comprehend how someone would believe such shit. Do they teach history where you come from? Or do they just indoctrinate you with bullshit?

Poverty was appalling. Something I find quite interesting is that when the government went to war in south Africa (the boer war) they struggled so much to find healthy young men that they even lowered the minimum height you needed to be to join. Again this didn't change until better state welfare was introduced.

"Academic standards deteriorated to levels never before imaginable in these newly formed "public" schools. " What? This just gets worse? So the state says, right we're not really happy about 8 year olds dying on the factory floor, lets all give them an education. How the bloody hell did "Academic standards deteriorated to levels never before imaginable in these newly formed "public" schools. ".

"Today, only about 5% of England's schools are completely independent of the government." Do you know what the percentage was in the Victorian era? No I bet you don't.

"The most famous of these, the private high schools that are called public schools in England (examples would be Eton, Harrow, and Winchester), have traditionally emphasized character, discipline, and high scholarship, and they have turned out a high percentage of Britain's leaders (including the last two)."

This is also bullshit. I go to a very nice private school, and I can tell you the only difference between it and the state school down the road is that my school has slightly more money.

"In recent years, attempts have been made by the government to incorporate these schools into the government system."

Please provide examples of when, because this is also bullshit.

In fact there is so much more bullshit in this article I don't even have time to argue against it all.

The poor in this country were in a fucking state before the welfare state helped them out. We had a huge empire but couldn't even look after our own people, and if it wasn't for some government intervention this probably wouldn't have changed much.

 

[Rusky]

+Rep

Welcome to our country. We are grateful you decided to come here and pursue these dreams with us.
I only wish we could have kept the dream alive for you.

Thank you. Live here for 17 years now, I consider this my county now.
Most people here dont appriate what they have. I just remember getting my teeth pulled as a child without Novocaine, all the other medical care was about the same.

 

[Rusky]

Republican attorneys general in at least 12 states warned on Monday that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government's healthcare reform bill from encroaching on states' sovereignty.
States launch lawsuits against healthcare plan | Reuters

 

[phillian]

Also, I know of a few other ladies on here that would most likely disagree with me on quite a few points in my ideologies (Phillian you want to get in on this?) and finally while I respect the opinions of the other ladies, our politics are vastly different in many respects. To throw us together because we have vaginas is extremely annoying.

I am not against everyone in the United States having health care.

I am against enabling a money-hungry, power-grabbing, inefficient monstrosity with the ability to increase taxes, expand authority and spend ever more frivolously.

You astutely pointed out “how can we be entitled to an education and not to healthcare?” NEITHER is guaranteed in the Constitution to be PROVIDED by the government. Only that the government is tasked with "promoting the general Welfare". It was intended, and constitutionally should remain, the responsibility of- in order-

1. The individual
2. The family
3. The municipality
4. The state

to determine how best to educate and ensure the health of themselves and their citizens.

The crux of the argument is a constitutional one- if you believe that the document was written to be permissive and subsequent amendments, law, and case law were intended to 'bolster' the authority of the federal government as an 'add on', then you are right to support expansion of federal powers and the passing of Health Care Reform.

If, however, you believe that the Founding Fathers intended the constitution to be written as a restrictive measure; that memories of tyrannical rule under George the III fresh on their minds they were largely suspicious of a very strong government, then the passing of this latest measure insults and defies their intent.

This bill simply infringes on state powers and hands them over to the federal government. Congress does not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance, so the signing of this bill into law creates new congressional authority that never previously existed. The bill also provides for executive or congressional appointees to oversee the implementation of its' measures, and may, eventually, provide for permissive access to your aggregate personal information, including health and employment history (a violation of the 4th Amendment).

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." Ronald Reagan

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have” Gerald Ford​

Education spending has been frankly abysmal (NCLB was a miserable failure under Bush, millions of dollars dedicated to education in the Bailout have gone for such stupendous things as a grant to hire more black teachers in Philadelphia. Seriously?)

Medicare and Medicaid are notorious for fraudulent or questionable, at best, claims and as a source for ‘easy’ money at hospitals and doctors’ offices on the backs of the taxpayer.

Social Security, another money-sucking stalwart, is already in the red, having been borrowed against by President after President whose term has conveniently expired before the loan was due to expire. We are actively putting money into a system we will never see a return on (if you are under 35).

With our legacy of poor fund appropriation, unending expansion of programs and terrible ROI for the American people in the current education and senior healthcare systems, I have ZERO confidence that the passing of this legislation will mean anything more than an increase in taxes, loss of benefit-including jobs (in favor of 1099 contractors and part-time employees) and the demise of an industry.

 

[Bofu2U]

I am not against everyone in the United States having health care.

I am against enabling a money-hungry, power-grabbing, inefficient monstrosity with the ability to increase taxes, expand authority and spend ever more frivolously.

You astutely pointed out “how can we be entitled to an education and not to healthcare?” NEITHER is guaranteed in the Constitution to be PROVIDED by the government. Only that the government is tasked with "promoting the general Welfare". It was intended, and constitutionally should remain, the responsibility of- in order-

1. The individual
2. The family
3. The municipality
4. The state

to determine how best to educate and ensure the health of themselves and their citizens.

The crux of the argument is a constitutional one- if you believe that the document was written to be permissive and subsequent amendments, law, and case law were intended to 'bolster' the authority of the federal government as an 'add on', then you are right to support expansion of federal powers and the passing of Health Care Reform.

If, however, you believe that the Founding Fathers intended the constitution to be written as a restrictive measure; that memories of tyrannical rule under George the III fresh on their minds they were largely suspicious of a very strong government, then the passing of this latest measure insults and defies their intent.

This bill simply infringes on state powers and hands them over to the federal government. Congress does not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance, so the signing of this bill into law creates new congressional authority that never previously existed. The bill also provides for executive or congressional appointees to oversee the implementation of its' measures, and may, eventually, provide for permissive access to your aggregate personal information, including health and employment history (a violation of the 4th Amendment).

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." Ronald Reagan

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have” Gerald Ford​

Education spending has been frankly abysmal (NCLB was a miserable failure under Bush, millions of dollars dedicated to education in the Bailout have gone for such stupendous things as a grant to hire more black teachers in Philadelphia. Seriously?)

Medicare and Medicaid are notorious for fraudulent or questionable, at best, claims and as a source for ‘easy’ money at hospitals and doctors’ offices on the backs of the taxpayer.

Social Security, another money-sucking stalwart, is already in the red, having been borrowed against by President after President whose term has conveniently expired before the loan was due to expire. We are actively putting money into a system we will never see a return on (if you are under 35).

With our legacy of poor fund appropriation, unending expansion of programs and terrible ROI for the American people in the current education and senior healthcare systems, I have ZERO confidence that the passing of this legislation will mean anything more than an increase in taxes, loss of benefit-including jobs (in favor of 1099 contractors and part-time employees) and the demise of an industry.

And this, is why I love you.

 

[esomark]

This line of reasoning is flawed.

Example;

If government could cure poverty, wouldn't it have already done so?


I asked you to name the specific basic necessities. Can you do that please?


At the beginning of this paragraph, you claim that you didn't say the market couldn't do it, but by the end of the paragraph, you are in fact claiming the market fails.

So which is it? Does the market fail to provide basic necessities or not?

You also brought up something else. Something important. Not everyone can afford the necessities. Purchasing power is based on production. So if people cannot afford to buy things (like brain transplants, or trips to Jupiter) does that mean the market failed, or there is not currently enough production to achieve that end?

If there is not enough production to bring costs down, then just making costs lower by government fiat (price fixing) will create shortages. Would you agree this is sound supply and demand theory?

No its a completely flawed and confused supply and demand theory.

"So if people cannot afford to buy things (like brain transplants, or trips to Jupiter) does that mean the market failed, or there is not currently enough production to achieve that end?"

This is where you are wrong. There is plenty of production to achieve that end, its just the market chooses not to, because it sees one person's new car as more important than another persons life. Healthcare, drugs etc aren't a finite resources that need to be distributes by the market. Sometimes the only way to make the market do something that is morally right is to force it to, and the only body that can do that is the government.

Do I think the government should force the market to provide for the dying person rather than the rich person's new car? Yes I do actually, no matter how much of a worthless scumbag the dying guy is.

 

[turbolapp]

How about you actually reply to the assertions people are making.

Why should I? My post was an honest pondering to why people are ok with free education but not free health care. I didn't realize it was a requirement to pick a side and yell like a crazed baboon.

 

[flysarescary]

Who the fuck are you? Glenn Beck? I almost put one of those "not sure if serious" images up. Bloody hell I've never read such unbelievable bollocks in my fucking life. Please tell me, where did you get this from? Almost every sentence is a completely ridiculous statement, with no evidence to back it up. This isn't history, this is just some guy (probably Glenn Beck) making this shit up as he goes.

I don't even know where to start to point out all the huge errors in this account. I almost feel sick that anyone would ever read this and agree/believe it. Please don't take this as history, I beg you.

Read some real history

Victorian era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the early Victorian era over 50% of children grew up without learning to read and write. This didn't change until the government made them go to school at least until they were 12.

"The first changes were made in the schools. In Victorian England (just a few decades before), education had been viewed as a way to train the individual to use his own, unique abilities to help his fellow man and succeed in whichever way he so chose. Every student was different so why teach them all in the same way?"

I really don't understand, I simply find it impossible to comprehend how someone would believe such shit. Do they teach history where you come from? Or do they just indoctrinate you with bullshit?

Poverty was appalling. Something I find quite interesting is that when the government went to war in south Africa (the boer war) they struggled so much to find healthy young men that they even lowered the minimum height you needed to be to join. Again this didn't change until better state welfare was introduced.

"Academic standards deteriorated to levels never before imaginable in these newly formed "public" schools. " What? This just gets worse? So the state says, right we're not really happy about 8 year olds dying on the factory floor, lets all give them an education. How the bloody hell did "Academic standards deteriorated to levels never before imaginable in these newly formed "public" schools. ".

"Today, only about 5% of England's schools are completely independent of the government." Do you know what the percentage was in the Victorian era? No I bet you don't.

"The most famous of these, the private high schools that are called public schools in England (examples would be Eton, Harrow, and Winchester), have traditionally emphasized character, discipline, and high scholarship, and they have turned out a high percentage of Britain's leaders (including the last two)."

This is also bullshit. I go to a very nice private school, and I can tell you the only difference between it and the state school down the road is that my school has slightly more money.

"In recent years, attempts have been made by the government to incorporate these schools into the government system."

Please provide examples of when, because this is also bullshit.

In fact there is so much more bullshit in this article I don't even have time to argue against it all.

The poor in this country were in a fucking state before the welfare state helped them out. We had a huge empire but couldn't even look after our own people, and if it wasn't for some government intervention this probably wouldn't have changed much.

lols something like this

 

[ly2 from WF]

Why should I? My post was an honest pondering to why people are ok with free education but not free health care. I didn't realize it was a requirement to pick a side and yell like a crazed baboon.

Since when is government/public education a good thing and since the fuck when is it "free"? It's probably free to you because you don't pay taxes, to others who actually make money the shit ain't "free". It's paid for by homeowners and if that homeowner doesn't have kids or sends their kids to private school guess what? They are still forced to pay for your "free" schooling. I love the retards running around calling the shit free as if it's being pulled out of thin air. You realize someone actually has to pay for all your free shit, right? Food stamps, welfare, schools, healthcare, some poor fuck is working his/her ass off to pay for this shit.

I didn't learn SHIT in public school except how to conform and be a good little sheep. They teach you zero real world skills and 90% of the teachers are HORRIFIC but they can't be fired because of the parasite we call the teachers union. Public school is a complete and total failure and it's actually getting worse.

 

[guerilla]

No its a completely flawed and confused supply and demand theory.

"So if people cannot afford to buy things (like brain transplants, or trips to Jupiter) does that mean the market failed, or there is not currently enough production to achieve that end?"

This is where you are wrong. There is plenty of production to achieve that end, its just the market chooses not to, because it sees one person's new car as more important than another persons life.

Uhm, what? There is enough production that it is affordable for people to take trips to Jupiter now? That's news to me.

Healthcare, drugs etc aren't a finite resources that need to be distributes by the market.

Everything is finite. Name one industrial good that doesn't take at the very least, time in the form of labor to produce.

Time is also scarce... ... ...

Sometimes the only way to make the market do something that is morally right is to force it to, and the only body that can do that is the government.

So forcing people to do things against their will is moral? Is forcing someone else to pay for what you want or need moral? How is this different than stealing?

Do I think the government should force the market to provide for the dying person rather than the rich person's new car? Yes I do actually, no matter how much of a worthless scumbag the dying guy is.

But why do you get to decide how my property is used? What makes you the moral authority to take from me to give to someone else?

If you want to help the dying person, you are welcome to do so yourself with your own time and resources. That is called charity.

Taking from others against their wishes, violating their property rights, is not moral, and in my opinion, it is not justifiable as civilized behavior.

 

[nickycakes]

Anyone know where I can apply to be on one of the death panels?