Symmetry wrote:No screaming, you just come across as an idiot. I hope that's not a big thing, and I mean no slander on your education level, but if you had a teacher, I suspect that they would tell you something similar if you presented them with a piece of prose like that, no matter the subject.
Anyway- I just wanted to ask if this was a parody post. I really can't tell.
nope, it's not.
i'll take idiot. or whatever else you want to call me. we can only know what we think... or read. past that, we'll never find the answer until it's too late to matter.
so hopefully you're right, free healthcare to the masses will create a supersociety eventually liberating all humans from dependance on themselves. creating a single organism that will function as a colony of ants or bees. how free we'll all feel and how great our rights shall be when that day comes.
Yeah, I think most of us will be happy with going to a hospital when we're really sick, getting good treatment, and not bankrupting our families. Hopefully, of course, doesn't so much come into it so much. That's kind of how we live and look after each other.
It really isn't impossible dude. Someday, you too might even make that first step and work out how to use capital letters.
if you're concerned whether or not i'm capitalizing my letters you're at the wrong place. you may notice my spelling is not all that correct. or my grammer. whoopty doo. you're so smart.
DangerBoy wrote:Welcome to teh forumz, Williams. You probably already know this by now, but this is standard practice by Sym & Co. to go the marginalization route when challenged by those with opposing viewpoints.
Oh the irony!
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Symmetry wrote:No screaming, you just come across as an idiot. I hope that's not a big thing, and I mean no slander on your education level, but if you had a teacher, I suspect that they would tell you something similar if you presented them with a piece of prose like that, no matter the subject.
Anyway- I just wanted to ask if this was a parody post. I really can't tell.
nope, it's not.
i'll take idiot. or whatever else you want to call me. we can only know what we think... or read. past that, we'll never find the answer until it's too late to matter.
so hopefully you're right, free healthcare to the masses will create a supersociety eventually liberating all humans from dependance on themselves. creating a single organism that will function as a colony of ants or bees. how free we'll all feel and how great our rights shall be when that day comes.
Yeah, I think most of us will be happy with going to a hospital when we're really sick, getting good treatment, and not bankrupting our families. Hopefully, of course, doesn't so much come into it so much. That's kind of how we live and look after each other.
It really isn't impossible dude. Someday, you too might even make that first step and work out how to use capital letters.
if you're concerned whether or not i'm capitalizing my letters you're at the wrong place. you may notice my spelling is not all that correct. or my grammer. whoopty doo. you're so smart.
all for you bud, now. go save the world.
For some reason, I think that you finding the shift key might well prove a greater achievement than me saving the world, and I say that out of deep deep modesty.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Right now (looking out the window); things are very grim. Personally I probably agree with you on most of your near term (ie tomorrow) suggestions; id be cutting all types of spending (from new fighter jets to welfare checks - take a deep breath everyone, we're tightening a few notches) - the politics is so convoluted that im not sure of the ins and outs, but I would be putting big spends like Obamacare and other inititives on hold.
I'd also be hell bent on closing tax loopholes for higher incomes and other very higher income earners - make it temporary or whatever but just squeeze what you can.
This doesnt really mean much in the context of the meta-debate though; if you survive by simply looking out the window (ie only considering the short term) you wont be going very far.
I have never said freedom will fix it. I have always said freedom will do better, and specifically free market approach...
Yes and no; the government is the problem, but the size of the government is not.
You can have smart, efficient regulation that promotes growth; or you can have stuffy, ill planned, and "bought out" regulation that promotes growth from some, but overall stifles it.
The government is bad idealology is very narrow minded if thats all you consider. I am all for free markets, I love the suckers; but they have to be used with caution and only implemented only where appropriate. Market failure does happen, and while left to itself eventually the failure will be overcome; the net best outcome, even if you consider 100+ year outlooks, is sometimes public provisioning of certain goods.
More to come...
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
It might be slightly better for the poor people, at first, but its going to ruin healthcare as a whole, for everyone.
Thats to do with the specifics of Obamacare; and if im being honest Obamacare is kind of iffy for the exact reason you outlined. But im not suggesting scrap it; Obamacare is heading in the right direction [in my opinion], but it is quite simply not spending enough, or more accurately not spending enough in the right places. It needs to be put on hold; and then when the economy is back on track, restart it. but with additional funding to prop up the care providers as well as the consumers - as you say 30 million additional people will likely break the industry in the short term.
Personlly I think health insurance should be a luxary, not something everyone just gets by default; have some baseline healthcare provisioning, and then have premium services provided by insurance if you can afford it (such as avoiding waiting lists for non-urgent ops etc).
And anyway the insurance model is just some dressed up "private" version of the same thing; everyone deserves healthcare - rich and poor all catch colds - so trying to lay over some attempt at free market incentives (private providers being paid off by insurance companies) merely just adds inefficiency and the proverbial rent seekers.
Either do it properly and truely be free market and let the poor go without etc; or get involved properly: provide some baseline care (better than A&E) that is open to any citizen of the great United States.
Our concern should be making our healthcare sector more stable, more available, and keeping it open for business. Yes we need to be concerned about poor people too, but the cart has to come behind the horse, not in front of it.
But the "concern for the poor" being coupled with "free market; f*ck yeah!" has lead you down the path of some hybrid scenario that pretty much screws everyone.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:Ok PS first... jeepers crew, whats with the essay that contain heaps of irrelevant stuff? Anyhoo, ill try to address everything I can...
Right now (looking out the window); things are very grim. Personally I probably agree with you on most of your near term (ie tomorrow) suggestions; id be cutting all types of spending (from new fighter jets to welfare checks - take a deep breath everyone, we're tightening a few notches) - the politics is so convoluted that im not sure of the ins and outs, but I would be putting big spends like Obamacare and other inititives on hold.
I'd also be hell bent on closing tax loopholes for higher incomes and other very higher income earners - make it temporary or whatever but just squeeze what you can.
This doesnt really mean much in the context of the meta-debate though; if you survive by simply looking out the window (ie only considering the short term) you wont be going very far.
I have never said freedom will fix it. I have always said freedom will do better, and specifically free market approach...
Yes and no; the government is the problem, but the size of the government is not.
You can have smart, efficient regulation that promotes growth; or you can have stuffy, ill planned, and "bought out" regulation that promotes growth from some, but overall stifles it.
The government is bad idealology is very narrow minded if thats all you consider. I am all for free markets, I love the suckers; but they have to be used with caution and only implemented only where appropriate. Market failure does happen, and while left to itself eventually the failure will be overcome; the net best outcome, even if you consider 100+ year outlooks, is sometimes public provisioning of certain goods.
More to come...
I agree with everything you say here, except for the part about too much government. Government costs a lot of money, and it has 0 return. The government is not all I consider, but there is so much of it that it will constantly be considered, even if only based on a lack of other options. If you bring up insurance companies and greedy sectors, you might have a point, but you will have to concede the government interference is heavy in those areas as well. I don't get what you are trying to say by re-sharing my comment about "running away from free markets...". The point there is not that anything is going to fix anything, just that one way is going to be better than another way, and one way will respect the liberty of the people more and one less, that one way will cause prices to decrease somewhat in some areas, and another way is going to increase prices more than the decreases promised, and the government does not have a very good track record of keeping it's promises.
DangerBoy wrote:Welcome to teh forumz, Williams. You probably already know this by now, but this is standard practice by Sym & Co. to go the marginalization route when challenged by those with opposing viewpoints.
thanks
that's about the funniest avatar i've seen. is that dawson....crying.
Lootifer wrote:Where as we've had that pesky government meddling in Educ/HC for ever and we seem to do fine...
Ahh, New Zealand. I like the kiwis, decent people it seems to me. I know one or two, not saying that all kiwis are the same as the few I know, but just sayin' is all.
Well, Europe, that's the pain you get for putting yourselves under the thumb of an all powerful CB and the corporations that grow up around them. The rest of the world should take a good look and learn before the same lesson is taught to us as well if it's not already too late....
Entirely correct; dont quite remember it since I was born in the 80's, but a couple of work mates are old enough to remember 21% interest on their mortgages.
But I dont really see your point. The government is still knees deep in a number of areas (healthcare and education being two very important ones that I want them to remain in - in fact I voted for the centre left, and thus want more involvment in these areas, but centre right are in power atm, but they do ok, not looking to privatise healthcare anytime soon or anything silly ). The government provisioning of healthcare and education seems to be doing very well; while there are always complaints from both polticial sides, we have affordable healthcare for everyone, and *most* of the population has access to schooling of a very high standard. Your very interesting story (not being sarcastic here ) doesnt really have any relevance to this...
Now I'd love to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of the upcoming state asset sales but unfortunatly I cannot as this is technically the public, and I want to keep my job
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
It might be slightly better for the poor people, at first, but its going to ruin healthcare as a whole, for everyone.
Thats to do with the specifics of Obamacare; and if im being honest Obamacare is kind of iffy for the exact reason you outlined. But im not suggesting scrap it; Obamacare is heading in the right direction [in my opinion], but it is quite simply not spending enough, or more accurately not spending enough in the right places. It needs to be put on hold; and then when the economy is back on track, restart it. but with additional funding to prop up the care providers as well as the consumers - as you say 30 million additional people will likely break the industry in the short term.
Personlly I think health insurance should be a luxary, not something everyone just gets by default; have some baseline healthcare provisioning, and then have premium services provided by insurance if you can afford it (such as avoiding waiting lists for non-urgent ops etc).
And anyway the insurance model is just some dressed up "private" version of the same thing; everyone deserves healthcare - rich and poor all catch colds - so trying to lay over some attempt at free market incentives (private providers being paid off by insurance companies) merely just adds inefficiency and the proverbial rent seekers.
Either do it properly and truely be free market and let the poor go without etc; or get involved properly: provide some baseline care (better than A&E) that is open to any citizen of the great United States.
Our concern should be making our healthcare sector more stable, more available, and keeping it open for business. Yes we need to be concerned about poor people too, but the cart has to come behind the horse, not in front of it.
But the "concern for the poor" being coupled with "free market; f*ck yeah!" has lead you down the path of some hybrid scenario that pretty much screws everyone.
Interestingly, I like a few things as well. Whereas perhaps it should not be scrapped, because there are some good things in there as I have conceded on many occasions, but those were just the things to get the bill passed, and those parts can survive a partial repeal. My only point on this issue has been that the good parts of the health care reform could of and should have been passed individually or in a smaller package, but the reality at the time was the Democrats had a supermajority, and supermajorities are not in the habit of getting away with less than they are able to get away with. "Never let a crisis go to waste"
Health insurance is a luxury. It is a luxury that someone is able to spend 10 years in school, become highly specialized and efficient with knowledge and tremendously expensive equipment. If the money does not keep coming in to sustain that knowledge and equipment, then people are not going to strive to be doctors and equipment is going to be downgraded or not replaced, and most likely certain coverages will continue to be dropped from the plan as time goes on.
I will stay consistent with what I have said all along about a great many issues. This does, can, and should be handled more at the state level. If a state wants to have Obamacare, then I support that, Hopefully the people will get to have a Democratic say on the matter.
This one size fits all Obamacare is not going to work. Again, it's not 100% about the program. A lot has to do with the manner and the level upon which it was imposed, the lies that were told by all sides, the liberties that will be infringed upon, further redistribution of wealth, and I could go on...
It's been good talking to you tonight. Did you get laid recently or something?
Woodruff wrote:And I really have had the impression that 2dimes is a social conservative, but that he tends toward not imposing those social views on others. That doesn't make him not socially conservative, merely of the sort who doesn't want to force everyone else to live that way. I certainly could be wrong about that, of course...which was why I suggested in my post that I could be wrong about it.
I would disagree strongly with the idea that not wanting to force other people is part of social conservativism.
We would definitely disagree then. My mother is one of the most socially conservative people I know, but she very staunchly holds that her beliefs should not be forced on anyone else. It makes no sense to me at all that such force must be a part of social conservatism.
PLAYER57832 wrote:by your token, I would, then be socially conservative. However, I am not. I believe in tolerance.
I don't at all agree that social conservatism must include intolerance. It very frequently does, unfortunately...but I do not agree that it must. As you said, the extreme liberal vein of things are awfully intolerant as well, so it doesn't make sense to me that intolerance is incumbent on social conservatism.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Juan_Bottom wrote:How do you know that healthcare isn't a right?
Because SOCIALISM!!!! OBAMA!!!!! SOROS!!!!!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:Interestingly, I like a few things as well. Whereas perhaps it should not be scrapped, because there are some good things in there as I have conceded on many occasions, but those were just the things to get the bill passed, and those parts can survive a partial repeal. My only point on this issue has been that the good parts of the health care reform could of and should have been passed individually or in a smaller package, but the reality at the time was the Democrats had a supermajority, and supermajorities are not in the habit of getting away with less than they are able to get away with. "Never let a crisis go to waste"
Health insurance is a luxury. It is a luxury that someone is able to spend 10 years in school, become highly specialized and efficient with knowledge and tremendously expensive equipment. If the money does not keep coming in to sustain that knowledge and equipment, then people are not going to strive to be doctors and equipment is going to be downgraded or not replaced, and most likely certain coverages will continue to be dropped from the plan as time goes on.
I will stay consistent with what I have said all along about a great many issues. This does, can, and should be handled more at the state level. If a state wants to have Obamacare, then I support that, Hopefully the people will get to have a Democratic say on the matter.
This one size fits all Obamacare is not going to work. Again, it's not 100% about the program. A lot has to do with the manner and the level upon which it was imposed, the lies that were told by all sides, the liberties that will be infringed upon, further redistribution of wealth, and I could go on...
This is where I bow out of the discussion since its quickly going into details, and as you have said many times, why the hell do i care? (I only care at the high level because its an interesting debate, but dwelling on details of another countries medicial system is rather pointless).
But briefly: - I think Americas most fundamental issue is not the size of the government, but the political structure on which the government is built - 2 party politics for a country of 280+ million is, in my opinion, beyond retarded - Leading on from that I kind of agree with the states thing, however, my caveat is that, as always, the collective tend to be pretty rubbish at making decisions when it comes to human/civic rights issues so caution is advised
It's been good talking to you tonight. Did you get laid recently or something?
In order to maintain posterity my response is thus: Nah, its just you're saying less stupid stuff than usual
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Juan_Bottom wrote:How do you know that healthcare isn't a right? You weren't born with a voting ballot in your hand either.
Because it can't be a right. For healthcare to exist, you have to have wealth. If all the money is taken out or unavailable for healthcare in a certain area, how could it possibly be a right?
Are you actually positing that there was no concept of caring for anyone's health before there was currency?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:It shouldn't have anything to do with healthcare, except for people started one day claiming that healthcare is a right, and that somehow gives them to right to infringe on everyone else's rights and property....
No more than saying that preserving open and navigable waterways and clean air infringes upon everyone else's property rights.
And how are those "rights" protected when a volcano erupts????????????????????????????????
You are under the impression that keeping navigable waterways open causes volcanoes to erupt now, too?
Healthcare is a right because people have a right to exist. HOWEVER, it is not an unlimited right.
Just like the right to free speech.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Lootifer wrote:America is a great nation for many many things. And if I was an American I would be very proud of some of it's incredible attributes.
Healthcare and Education are not two of such attributes; if I was an American I would be embarrassed.
we are embarrassed, about what has happened to our education and healthcare system since the government started interfering over the last 50 years. Before gov't interference, we were at the top, if not close to it.
As unhappy and even angry as I am personally with many of the federal policies regarding education, I'm far more EMBARRASSED by what states are doing to education in this country.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Lootifer wrote:America is a great nation for many many things. And if I was an American I would be very proud of some of it's incredible attributes.
Healthcare and Education are not two of such attributes; if I was an American I would be embarrassed.
we are embarrassed, about what has happened to our education and healthcare system since the government started interfering over the last 50 years. Before gov't interference, we were at the top, if not close to it.
As unhappy and even angry as I am personally with many of the federal policies regarding education, I'm far more EMBARRASSED by what states are doing to education in this country.
What do you mean by what the states are doing to education as opposed to feds?
Phatscotty wrote:Government costs a lot of money, and it has 0 return.
Zero return? Lootifer is trying to discuss this issue with you honestly, and this is part of what you come back with? It doesn't even make basic sense.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:And I really have had the impression that 2dimes is a social conservative, but that he tends toward not imposing those social views on others. That doesn't make him not socially conservative, merely of the sort who doesn't want to force everyone else to live that way. I certainly could be wrong about that, of course...which was why I suggested in my post that I could be wrong about it.
I would disagree strongly with the idea that not wanting to force other people is part of social conservativism.
We would definitely disagree then. My mother is one of the most socially conservative people I know, but she very staunchly holds that her beliefs should not be forced on anyone else. It makes no sense to me at all that such force must be a part of social conservatism.
PLAYER57832 wrote:by your token, I would, then be socially conservative. However, I am not. I believe in tolerance.
I don't at all agree that social conservatism must include intolerance. It very frequently does, unfortunately...but I do not agree that it must. As you said, the extreme liberal vein of things are awfully intolerant as well, so it doesn't make sense to me that intolerance is incumbent on social conservatism.
I agree with your mother. I am socially conservative but I try not to force my beliefs on anyone. Sometimes we do attempt to force our beliefs, everyone does at times. But once I realize it I generally apologize and back off.
I think the intolerance argument is extremely manipulated by politicians using them as platforms. I think people who could have been borderline on a subject and could have been convinced to think rationally, have actually been swayed by politicians creating gaps between people to garner votes. This happens on both sides and will continue.
Lootifer wrote:America is a great nation for many many things. And if I was an American I would be very proud of some of it's incredible attributes.
Healthcare and Education are not two of such attributes; if I was an American I would be embarrassed.
we are embarrassed, about what has happened to our education and healthcare system since the government started interfering over the last 50 years. Before gov't interference, we were at the top, if not close to it.
As unhappy and even angry as I am personally with many of the federal policies regarding education, I'm far more EMBARRASSED by what states are doing to education in this country.
What do you mean by what the states are doing to education as opposed to feds?
Primarily, Kansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and BY GAWD DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS are literally gutting the whole idea of what education is. Critical thinking skills are being literally eliminated from curriculum by state standards. Actual science in the form of things like evolution (it's far from the only example, but it is the most obvious) are literally being denounced as "just theories" when there is overwhelming evidence regarding them. Stuff that is really and truly embarrassing to me as an educator.
The Federal government has absolutely had a hand in screwing things up (testing as the sole determinant of success, and this is a problem with many states as well, not just at the Federal level), and that stuff pisses me off. But I recognize that the intent behind the Federal attempts was/is good, and that includes things like No Child Left Behind (which I hate!). But it doesn't embarrass me the way the state-level stuff does, because I DON'T AT ALL believe that the intent behind them is good, and yet people are being swayed into it for (primarily) religious reasons.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
kentington wrote:I think the intolerance argument is extremely manipulated by politicians using them as platforms. I think people who could have been borderline on a subject and could have been convinced to think rationally, have actually been swayed by politicians creating gaps between people to garner votes. This happens on both sides and will continue.
No question. But not just politicians...also those who buy into the politicians (as some in these fora do).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
). The government provisioning of healthcare and education seems to be doing very well; while there are always complaints from both polticial sides, we have affordable healthcare for everyone, and *most* of the population has access to schooling of a very high standard. Your very interesting story (not being sarcastic here 
) doesnt really have any relevance to this...
