Moderator: Community Team
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:This debate is destined to go nowhere. The conservative argument is favored when it comes to a philosophical debate (though I, being unread in Hobbes or Locke would not give up on that just yet - I will get to read both as well as Marx in my final semester of school) and the liberal position is favored when it comes to economics here. When I take the policy/economic approach (i.e. not tobinov's argument) here, the debate on this board devolves to this:
1. "This is more economically efficient; health care is not a commodity"
2. "But this infringes on liberty by taking from the rich and giving to the poor"
3. "But it is necessary to lower health care costs to take the concept of profit out"
4. "But the problem with costs is regulation"
5. "But in nations with more regulations or with fully public health care costs are reduced"
6. Repeat from 2
We can say this over and over and nothing will change. So unless someone says something so mind-numbingly dumb or ignorant, MC > MB so I'm done here. I'm closer to talking about V or Salt N' Pepa or the Catalan Pitch and Putt National Team at this point.
But this thread title must be changed, for it is obviously false. This is giving money to corporations - the very opposite of socialism. Obama's legacy to the left will forever be, in the words of Bernie Sanders, "socialism for the rich and cold, hard capitalism for the poor."
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
Mr_Adams wrote:Aradhus wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Also, and correct me if I'm wrong (because, you know, you guys have to be asked to do that... you'd never do that on your own)... Obamacare is not the public option. It's "the government helps you purchase health insurance from health insurance companies." It's kind of like Medicare, but for more people. It's almost like a sort of bailout for health insurance companies.
The public option was simply another health insurance option, provided by the government - ie competition for the monopolies the Health insurance companies have in each state.
It wouldn't have been subsidized at all by government. You wanted insurance, you paid the premiums into the public option like you do with insurance companies.
And I wouldn't call it(obamacare) a bailout, more like an investment or bribe, blowjob, I'm sure you get the jist.
The irony behind the monopolies insurance companies have in each state that the government would be trying to fix is that it is the government who causes the state lines to act as walls for insurance companies to create monopolies within.Ayn Rand, political philosopher, in an interview with Mike Wallace (1959) wrote:Under a free system, nobody can acquire a monopoly on anything
thegreekdog wrote:tobinov wrote:The free market deny's coverage if it chooses - and based on it's own interests, not those of individuals in need.
Correct. Except that coverage is usually not denied unless one actually has health insurance (ironically). If I don't have health insurance and cannot pay for healthcare (usually because my big screen TV, cable bill, and internet monthly fee had to be paid for first... sorry, I couldn't help myself... ignore that), I can get my healthcare for free from the local hospital, which is usually a non-profit organization.
tobinov wrote:thegreekdog wrote:So, I think we actually agree, except, again, I think you're equating elements of the social contract (namely the public's desires that assist them in fulfilling their inalienable rights) with unalienable rights themselves. Thus, as I posited in the beginning, health care is not, actually, an inalienable right. It is merely a part of the social contract that assists the public in achieving its inalienable right to life (and the other two).
I disagree and I think you are too quick to declare your original posit is proven by ignoring the case I have made.
Health, as reinforced by Locke, fits the law of Nature - and those rights tied to our basic human functionality, comprise our unalienable right to exist. These are not rights granted by government, but an obligation to them can be fulfilled by government.
I consider this to be an obligation (of the social contract), you recognize degrees of obligation, and others deny any and all obligation - it's how one views the role of government (and ultimately this dictates how one interprets the US Constitution...).
GreecePwns wrote:But this thread title must be changed, for it is obviously false. This is giving money to corporations - the very opposite of socialism. Obama's legacy to the left will forever be, in the words of Bernie Sanders, "socialism for the rich and cold, hard capitalism for the poor."
Falkomagno wrote:You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.
thegreekdog wrote:Falkomagno wrote:You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.
petty?
Falkomagno wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Falkomagno wrote:You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.
petty?
Pettiness I meant. Been cheap
Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Falkomagno wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Falkomagno wrote:You people have an issue against a Welfare state. That's explained basically by petty.
petty?
Pettiness I meant. Been cheap
Phatscotty wrote:Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work
So unemployment in welfare states is 100 percent. Right.Phatscotty wrote:Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:So unemployment in welfare states is 100 percent. Right.Phatscotty wrote:Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work
That is not even a logical nor rational response. Try again.
Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work
That is not even a logical nor rational response. Try again.
Take the Spock picture off. you are neither logical nor rational. It's quite plane what he is getting at: He works because he doesn't want to live off of the government, which lives off of everybody else, nor does he support a system which allows this to happen. Yes, I now you knew what he meant already, but now that it is explained in plain english, you can not give crappy excuses for not giving a legitimate response.
Which explains why unemployment in the biggest welfare states is much less than that of the US: Denmark 7.8 percent, Sweden 8.1 percent, Norway 3.5 percent, Germany 6.7 percent, Belgium 8.1...I could go on.Mr_Adams wrote:GreecePwns wrote:So unemployment in welfare states is 100 percent. Right.Phatscotty wrote:Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work
No, work incentive in Welfare states≤0
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Phatscotty wrote:Falkomagno wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Not to jump in on GD, but I have to say I don't think anything priced in the "trillions" and take 4 years to implement, 11,500 more IRS agents, and 2000+ pages in the bill, qualifies as "petty". There is nothing petty about it. If you lived in America, and worked in America, and paid taxes in America, you would know that we already have 5-8 different Agencies take chunks of our money before we even cash our pay check.
We are drawing the line concerning keeping the fruits of our labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU
You are fundamentally against the Welfare state phatscotty?. I think you do, but just to clarify that point
Um, isn't that the same as asking me if I work, or don't work? If I work, obviously I would be against the welfare state. If I was fundamentally pro-welfare state, I would not work. I would just be a bum.
Answer: I work
Falkomagno wrote:I'm saying that people opposing to a welfare state, in which a consistent part is a universal health care, are basing their logic on pettiness.
Where do you get that "anti american thing"? too much time with the wrong dudes it seems...
Aradhus wrote:Also, "Anti-American" is exactly the same BS snide despicable tactic that certain Americans used against fellow Americans when they accused them of being unpatriotic, because they opposed a war, or something the US government was doing, etc.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users