All points I can respect Kuzi---EXCEPT please know I wasnt calling you a racist or going after you in any way in anything I wrote. It was simply my opinion as a blanket statement and had ABSOLUTLY nothing to do or no direction toward you or Puro. As much as the three of us go at it I truly enjoy the bickering and debating with you both. Nothing personal AT ALL
All points I can respect Kuzi---EXCEPT please know I wasnt calling you a racist or going after you in any way in anything I wrote. It was simply my opinion as a blanket statement and had ABSOLUTLY nothing to do or no direction toward you or Puro. As much as the three of us go at it I truly enjoy the bickering and debating with you both. Nothing personal AT ALL
Oh yea well you are ugly! lol Kidding, honestly I agree with a lot of what you said but as Kuzi pointed out, because the insurance companies aren't perfect doesn't mean the only solution is government control. Government control will only increase cost and cut the amount of treatment most people can get. I have watched many many of the protests at the town hall meetings, and they are packed full of Vets and elderly, (and some hillbillies that look like they don't have two nickles to rub together) who were in no way yuppies or would know a silver spoon from a spork from Popeye's.
Onoly thing is I am not sure it woul raise price----but I concede there is no good answer.....and please, no dissin Popeyes......mmmmm dats good chikin
I don't see how it can do anything but raise the price of healthcare. It's a simple case of supply and demand. It will limit the number of services available and will over stretch the medical industry as a whole. It will limit the number of procedures that doctors can perform under the public option program, so to get a "non approved" procedure, you will have to make it worth the doctors time in some way... $$$ The problem is that it is up to the government to decide what is an "approved" procedure.
One thing that would honestly reduce the cost of healthcare in this country would be TORT reform. But the Democrats can't do that because it will piss off the trial lawyers, many of whom donate a large portion of money to the party.
All points I can respect Kuzi---EXCEPT please know I wasnt calling you a racist or going after you in any way in anything I wrote. It was simply my opinion as a blanket statement and had ABSOLUTLY nothing to do or no direction toward you or Puro. As much as the three of us go at it I truly enjoy the bickering and debating with you both. Nothing personal AT ALL
that is wy i included the word "if"
i would be very careful using blanket statements.
i know many democrats. I know many republicans. I know many libertarians. I know many people that dont give a *** about politics. so few of any of them are racist in any way that to use a blanket statement like that is a terrible mistake.
are there racists in the republican party? probably. are there racists in the democrat party? probably are there racists in the group of people that dont give a ***? probably.
call me an optimist, but i believe that most people in this nation have grown to understand that in fact, we are all created equal. Because of this we are closer than ever to the colorblind society that Dr. King spoke of.
unfortunately, there will probably always be some *** out there spewing racist views.
One thing that would honestly reduce the cost of healthcare in this country would be TORT reform. But the Democrats can't do that because it will piss off the trial lawyers, many of whom donate a large portion of money to the party.
i agree with this. but TORT reform alone will not solve the problem.
One thing that would honestly reduce the cost of healthcare in this country would be TORT reform. But the Democrats can't do that because it will piss off the trial lawyers, many of whom donate a large portion of money to the party.
i agree with this. but TORT reform alone will not solve the problem.
Oh lord no that isn't all it will take, thats why I said "one thing." There are so many things that would cut the cost of medical treatment without more government control. TORT would do a lot to help though. There are so many options out there to fix this problem that I just don't understand why people think bigger government is the only option.
I disagree totally that we are close to being a color blind society. In addition blanket statements are true, generally, for a good percentage of people and I stick to my statement on that being my true feelings. I believe the news stories about the rise in hate/extremist groups in this country of late are proof to my point....unless just written off as another liberal media bias. BTW, I dont believe I ever used the word racist in my postings---I dont think its an issue of overt racism as the desire and comfort level for the white controlled status quo.
I disagree totally that we are close to being a color blind society. In addition blanket statements are true, generally, for a good percentage of people and I stick to my statement on that being my true feelings. I believe the news stories about the rise in hate/extremist groups in this country of late are proof to my point....unless just written off as another liberal media bias. BTW, I dont believe I ever used the word racist in my postings---I dont think its an issue of overt racism as the desire and comfort level for the white controlled status quo.
The problem with the news stories about hate groups is that they don't focus on the actual groups they are speaking of, they are speaking about the report prduced by the DHLS which didn't quote facts about the rise of such groups, but was a report speculating that these groups could be on the rise due to the election. This doesn't tell me anything. Hate groups have been around since the time began and nothing will ever change that. There are always going to be fringe extremists out there no matter how tollerant society as a whole becomes. But once again, this has nothing what so ever to do with this healthcare bill. It isn't a racial issue, it is a government control issue. If it was a race issue then Hillarycare wouldn't have bombed like it did.
I disagree totally that we are close to being a color blind society.
i said "closer" if you compare attitudes today compared to 60 years ago.... we are way closer. i didnt say we are there. and i did admit that there are some racist people out there ( both white and black) but we are moving in the right direction.
Vulchor:
In addition blanket statements are true, generally, for a good percentage of people and I stick to my statement on that being my true feelings.
you can "feel" all you want but blanket statements are a classic logical fallacy. it is called the "hasty generalization fallacy" --to be more specific. A hasty generalization draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case, or small number of cases.
what applies to one or some of a group does not necessarily apply to the group. your example is almost classic. you said:
Vulchor:
.I say it sure looks like a group of middle aged, upper middle class white guys (and a few of their yuppie silver spooned children) screaming at anyone that will listen and what their words really say are " a black president, a hispanic supreme court judge, 25years til we arent the majority in this country...what happened to the good ol days?? We want em back, now lets yell about it".
though your theory may true to some of the people, it does not apply to all. I would venture that not even 5% of the people that go to those events are fighting the reform simply because the president is not white and we have a Hispanic Supreme court member.
Vulchor:
. BTW, I dont believe I ever used the word racist in my postings---I dont think its an issue of overt racism as the desire and comfort level for the white controlled status quo.
just because you didnt say they were racist does not mean that the actions you are pointing out are negative race based actions. this equals racism.
I don't see how it can do anything but raise the price of healthcare. It's a simple case of supply and demand. It will limit the number of services available and will over stretch the medical industry as a whole. It will limit the number of procedures that doctors can perform under the public option program, so to get a "non approved" procedure, you will have to make it worth the doctors time in some way... $$$ The problem is that it is up to the government to decide what is an "approved" procedure.
So I think I'm reading and understanding this right. This isn't official yet, but "they" are going to try to make this happen.
I would like to have a surgery on my esophageal spincter. My belly is broke, so it's like having a pot (my stomache) boiling a bunch of food with out a lid. If I did a hand stand, everything I just ate would come right out. My doctor has recommended this surgery after way too many evaluations, tests, and an incredibly nerve racking biopsy. What they found can potentially turn cancerous, but the surgery would really help prevent it. But if I'm understanding this right, my surgery might not be an "approved" procedure which would cost me more to get the surgery?
I don't see how it can do anything but raise the price of healthcare. It's a simple case of supply and demand. It will limit the number of services available and will over stretch the medical industry as a whole. It will limit the number of procedures that doctors can perform under the public option program, so to get a "non approved" procedure, you will have to make it worth the doctors time in some way... $$$ The problem is that it is up to the government to decide what is an "approved" procedure.
So I think I'm reading and understanding this right. This isn't official yet, but "they" are going to try to make this happen.
I would like to have a surgery on my esophageal spincter. My belly is broke, so it's like having a pot (my stomache) boiling a bunch of food with out a lid. If I did a hand stand, everything I just ate would come right out. My doctor has recommended this surgery after way too many evaluations, tests, and an incredibly nerve racking biopsy. What they found can potentially turn cancerous, but the surgery would really help prevent it. But if I'm understanding this right, my surgery might not be an "approved" procedure which would cost me more to get the surgery?
That is correct. It would be left in the hands of a medical advisory board that would look at cases and decide if something was life threatening. In Canada and parts of the U.K. surgery to remove cancer is called "elective" surgery and the patient is given pain pills instead. It would be 100% up to the government.
I don't see how it can do anything but raise the price of healthcare. It's a simple case of supply and demand. It will limit the number of services available and will over stretch the medical industry as a whole. It will limit the number of procedures that doctors can perform under the public option program, so to get a "non approved" procedure, you will have to make it worth the doctors time in some way... $$$ The problem is that it is up to the government to decide what is an "approved" procedure.
So I think I'm reading and understanding this right. This isn't official yet, but "they" are going to try to make this happen.
I would like to have a surgery on my esophageal spincter. My belly is broke, so it's like having a pot (my stomache) boiling a bunch of food with out a lid. If I did a hand stand, everything I just ate would come right out. My doctor has recommended this surgery after way too many evaluations, tests, and an incredibly nerve racking biopsy. What they found can potentially turn cancerous, but the surgery would really help prevent it. But if I'm understanding this right, my surgery might not be an "approved" procedure which would cost me more to get the surgery?
That is correct. It would be left in the hands of a medical advisory board that would look at cases and decide if something was life threatening. In Canada and parts of the U.K. surgery to remove cancer is called "elective" surgery and the patient is given pain pills instead. It would be 100% up to the government.
I don't see how it can do anything but raise the price of healthcare. It's a simple case of supply and demand. It will limit the number of services available and will over stretch the medical industry as a whole. It will limit the number of procedures that doctors can perform under the public option program, so to get a "non approved" procedure, you will have to make it worth the doctors time in some way... $$$ The problem is that it is up to the government to decide what is an "approved" procedure.
So I think I'm reading and understanding this right. This isn't official yet, but "they" are going to try to make this happen.
I would like to have a surgery on my esophageal spincter. My belly is broke, so it's like having a pot (my stomache) boiling a bunch of food with out a lid. If I did a hand stand, everything I just ate would come right out. My doctor has recommended this surgery after way too many evaluations, tests, and an incredibly nerve racking biopsy. What they found can potentially turn cancerous, but the surgery would really help prevent it. But if I'm understanding this right, my surgery might not be an "approved" procedure which would cost me more to get the surgery?
That is correct. It would be left in the hands of a medical advisory board that would look at cases and decide if something was life threatening. In Canada and parts of the U.K. surgery to remove cancer is called "elective" surgery and the patient is given pain pills instead. It would be 100% up to the government.
quit using scare tactics....
Well the truth can be a scary thing... and it gets worse every single day.
i read an interesting article that hits on many points discussed in this thread such as: -mass media's point of view -ignorance/arrogance of Congressman/government -the health care bill -the need to inform yourself
it seems that the democrats have opted to Go it alone when it comes to health care.
from the previous link::
Given hardening Republican opposition to congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance for the minority's cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans' purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month's congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
not to mention the 10th amendment... i dont want to take part in this and i am being forced to (according to page 16 of the bill) can someone tell me how that is not oppressive? seriously. i want to know.
yet the people that are standing up to this oppression and government take over are the ones being compared to N A Z I S
Well first of all we both know that this bill has a lot less to do with healthcare and much more to do with power and control. It is the same way it always is with the democrats, and the republicans as well. The difference is how they go about it. The democrats push for power by raising taxes and forcing people to be more and more dependant on the government. They want to make people who want to take care of themselves and cast them as *** just because they don't want to rely on the government. They have done this for years and the current administrations arrogance has cause this policy to grow more than it has at any point in American history. This is a bad thing because unless something major happens, they will take over the healthcare industry and there will be nothing any of us can do about it. This is a good thing in a way, because if they fail to take over, the American people will be able to see what liberalism truely stands for.
but the article does point out what has been happening in the medical industry at a level that many can understand. its not meant to be a "perfect match" its supposed to be an analogy so that others can see whats going on and has gone on.
Everyone doesnt need car insurance or even need a car.
Everyone does not need health insurance either.
in the strictest sense of the words, nobody on the planet "needs" any form of insurance.
this is why it all comes down to the simple fact that health care is not a Right. it is a good or service.
Rights cannot be given or taken away. Rights can only be recognized or violated.
Thank you. Kuz, I don't always agree with what you say but I think we see eye to eye on this one. This country needs a big refresher course to relearn the difference between rights and liberties, far too many people are interchanging the terms freely and it worries me where that process may lead us...where it is leading us.
Everyone doesnt need car insurance or even need a car.
Everyone does not need health insurance either.
in the strictest sense of the words, nobody on the planet "needs" any form of insurance.
this is why it all comes down to the simple fact that health care is not a Right. it is a good or service.
Rights cannot be given or taken away. Rights can only be recognized or violated.
Thank you. Kuz, I don't always agree with what you say but I think we see eye to eye on this one. This country needs a big refresher course to relearn the difference between rights and liberties, far too many people are interchanging the terms freely and it worries me where that process may lead us...where it is leading us.
Ok, I find myself agreeing more and more with this point of view as the Obama administration tries to increase government control/influence into more and more areas of our lives. But what's the point of continuing to say that health care is a good or service? Is it that government shouldn't be involved at all? Ok, so what's the alternative? Part of the issue I've always had with Libretarians is that they're good at pointing out what is wrong, but their solutions are always lacking?
thats a good concern. i dont have time to give you a plan/outline for a solution at the moment, but i do have one and have seen other libertarian plans.
my biggest problem with the libertarians is their PR. everyone seems to think that they are all nuts. though I AM nuts, to assume that the entire movement is nuts based off of me is a sweeping generalization; or a classic logical fallacy.
I have seen plans from libertatians, republicans, and even from other democrats that were all so much better than the current plan for a public option. The attack method they are using is that the "right wing nuts" just want to keep things the same, but that isn't true. The public option is not only worse than what we have now, but is much much worse than most of the other plans out there. The problem is finding these plans because the media simply isn't covering them. They aren't on the table so they don't get ratings. The media is much more concerned with people being captivated by their broadcasts than being informed by them. And that goes for every news network out there.
ok... now that i have a bit more time i can actually give a "real" and better response to this last series of posts. its been on my mind all day. thats one of the reasons why i like this forum. you guys make me think. thats great in my book
Luko:
Ok, I find myself agreeing more and more with this point of view as the Obama administration tries to increase government control/influence into more and more areas of our lives.
what was the tipping point? or is it just starting to tip? where where you before and where are you now?
Luko:
But what's the point of continuing to say that health care is a good or service? Is it that government shouldn't be involved at all?
this is a fantastic set of questions right here.
the point of me saying it is a good or service is to point it out. i am pointing it out because of the next logical point. that point:
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
t’s a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it.
The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life—the life that he alone owns.
so it isnt so much that "the government shouldnt be involved at al all" but more that people have a right to seek goods and services, a right does not ensure that someone will acquire something.
this is why we must make the distinction between "Rights" and "goods and services"
another reason why i keep bringing up this difference is that a Right does not cost anyone anything. your right to speak your mind does not cost me a cent. your right to live does not cost me a cent. your right to seek joy in any way you wish (providing you do not violate the rights of others) does not cost me a cent.
goods and services cost money. just because the government pays for health insurance does not mean that it is free. there is still a cost involved. since there is a cost involved, it cannot be a right.
Luko:
Ok, so what's the alternative? Part of the issue I've always had with Libretarians is that they're good at pointing out what is wrong, but their solutions are always lacking?
there are a few things going on here.
the libertarian party IS good at pointing out things that the government is doing that are wrong. I will agree with you on that 100%
their solutions are often simple, and may seem to be lacking in complexity. this does not make them wrong.
the nature of government (as a general entity) is to grow and expand and take things over slowly; to intervene in the lives of the individual for either more power for the government or for "the good of the people"
since this is the nature of government, and libertarians are against any and all violations of rights of the individual, no matter what the intentions of the program are, the solution most often proposed by a libertarian is for the government to stop whatever program the government is running.
this tends to go against conventional wisdom. conventional wisdom is that "something must be done!"
that is not true. often times a free market or natural evolving solution that requires no government action, just actions of the individual, will make the problem go away. as long as the actions taken by those individuals to correct whatever problem it is do not violate the rights of others... we are all cool and the gang.
to me, this is where the government steps in. the government's job is to protect the rights of the individual.
as far as the situation with health care goes, i have found an article that describes a much needed reform to our current system. the article is titled Seven Simple Rules for Health Care Reform this article does a much better job of laying out a plan than i ever could, and comes up with a few ideas that many have not heard of.
here is the first paragraph: "The status quo in American health care is indefensible—an expensive regulatory and bureaucratic mess. What that calls for, however, is not more layers of regulation and complicated mandates. Nor should government take over health care completely and run it as part of a political spoils system.
PuroFreak:
I have seen plans from libertatians, republicans, and even from other democrats that were all so much better than the current plan for a public option. The attack method they are using is that the "right wing nuts" just want to keep things the same, but that isn't true. The public option is not only worse than what we have now, but is much much worse than most of the other plans out there.
i agree with this statement 100%. the military is the only government program that i would even consider close to a "success" ... and they sure as heck arent turning a profit. the reason why i would call them successful (even though i dont agree with the why the commander in chief uses them all the time) is because the military is designed to protect the rights of the people of the US. And they have done so very well for many, many years. we live in one of the safest countries in the world. Americans do not fear that another country will come in here and take us over. for the most part, the only people Americans fear, is other Americans. (but i digress...)
PuroFreak:
The problem is finding these plans because the media simply isn't covering them. They aren't on the table so they don't get ratings. The media is much more concerned with people being captivated by their broadcasts than being informed by them. And that goes for every news network out there.
again, i agree with this. I know to an outsider, i may sound like some nut job that thinks there isnt a single word on the TV, radio, magazine, or in print that isnt signed off on by some KGB-esque government run department. i do know that this isnt the case there is a good amount of evidence out there that backs up the theory that much of the media has a bias to the left. the fact that it is harder to find serious criticism of Obama (or many other Democrat leaders) than it is to find criticism of many of the Republican, or Libertarian leaders.
often times democrats are cast in a far more favorable light than republicans.
lets put it this way... if John McCain had ever drown some chick in his car and not called for help for hours, he would not have a job in the US Government anymore.
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's affair with an Argentinian woman has now reached the point where impeachment was being talked about. The media ate that up. Clinton was just having fun in the oval office... like any other man would...
the media cannot get enough of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and other Democrat leaders calling republicans, libertarians, or anyone else against the health care plan "N a z i s" "tea baggers" and even racist. they have no qualms over being "outraged" over People more to the right wishing harm to obama, yet where was that same outrage when people were hanging bush in effigy? or when he was compared to Hitler?
there does seem to be a bit of a double standard in the media at large. I doubt that it is government sponsored. but its out there.
ok... now that i have a bit more time i can actually give a "real" and better response to this last series of posts. its been on my mind all day. thats one of the reasons why i like this forum. you guys make me think. thats great in my book
Luko:
Ok, I find myself agreeing more and more with this point of view as the Obama administration tries to increase government control/influence into more and more areas of our lives.
what was the tipping point? or is it just starting to tip? where where you before and where are you now?
Luko:
But what's the point of continuing to say that health care is a good or service? Is it that government shouldn't be involved at all?
this is a fantastic set of questions right here.
the point of me saying it is a good or service is to point it out. i am pointing it out because of the next logical point. that point:
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
t’s a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it.
The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life—the life that he alone owns.
so it isnt so much that "the government shouldnt be involved at al all" but more that people have a right to seek goods and services, a right does not ensure that someone will acquire something.
this is why we must make the distinction between "Rights" and "goods and services"
another reason why i keep bringing up this difference is that a Right does not cost anyone anything. your right to speak your mind does not cost me a cent. your right to live does not cost me a cent. your right to seek joy in any way you wish (providing you do not violate the rights of others) does not cost me a cent.
goods and services cost money. just because the government pays for health insurance does not mean that it is free. there is still a cost involved. since there is a cost involved, it cannot be a right.
Luko:
Ok, so what's the alternative? Part of the issue I've always had with Libretarians is that they're good at pointing out what is wrong, but their solutions are always lacking?
there are a few things going on here.
the libertarian party IS good at pointing out things that the government is doing that are wrong. I will agree with you on that 100%
their solutions are often simple, and may seem to be lacking in complexity. this does not make them wrong.
the nature of government (as a general entity) is to grow and expand and take things over slowly; to intervene in the lives of the individual for either more power for the government or for "the good of the people"
since this is the nature of government, and libertarians are against any and all violations of rights of the individual, no matter what the intentions of the program are, the solution most often proposed by a libertarian is for the government to stop whatever program the government is running.
this tends to go against conventional wisdom. conventional wisdom is that "something must be done!"
that is not true. often times a free market or natural evolving solution that requires no government action, just actions of the individual, will make the problem go away. as long as the actions taken by those individuals to correct whatever problem it is do not violate the rights of others... we are all cool and the gang.
to me, this is where the government steps in. the government's job is to protect the rights of the individual.
as far as the situation with health care goes, i have found an article that describes a much needed reform to our current system. the article is titled Seven Simple Rules for Health Care Reform this article does a much better job of laying out a plan than i ever could, and comes up with a few ideas that many have not heard of.
here is the first paragraph: "The status quo in American health care is indefensible—an expensive regulatory and bureaucratic mess. What that calls for, however, is not more layers of regulation and complicated mandates. Nor should government take over health care completely and run it as part of a political spoils system.
PuroFreak:
I have seen plans from libertatians, republicans, and even from other democrats that were all so much better than the current plan for a public option. The attack method they are using is that the "right wing nuts" just want to keep things the same, but that isn't true. The public option is not only worse than what we have now, but is much much worse than most of the other plans out there.
i agree with this statement 100%. the military is the only government program that i would even consider close to a "success" ... and they sure as heck arent turning a profit. the reason why i would call them successful (even though i dont agree with the why the commander in chief uses them all the time) is because the military is designed to protect the rights of the people of the US. And they have done so very well for many, many years. we live in one of the safest countries in the world. Americans do not fear that another country will come in here and take us over. for the most part, the only people Americans fear, is other Americans. (but i digress...)
PuroFreak:
The problem is finding these plans because the media simply isn't covering them. They aren't on the table so they don't get ratings. The media is much more concerned with people being captivated by their broadcasts than being informed by them. And that goes for every news network out there.
again, i agree with this. I know to an outsider, i may sound like some nut job that thinks there isnt a single word on the TV, radio, magazine, or in print that isnt signed off on by some KGB-esque government run department. i do know that this isnt the case there is a good amount of evidence out there that backs up the theory that much of the media has a bias to the left. the fact that it is harder to find serious criticism of Obama (or many other Democrat leaders) than it is to find criticism of many of the Republican, or Libertarian leaders.
often times democrats are cast in a far more favorable light than republicans.
lets put it this way... if John McCain had ever drown some chick in his car and not called for help for hours, he would not have a job in the US Government anymore.
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's affair with an Argentinian woman has now reached the point where impeachment was being talked about. The media ate that up. Clinton was just having fun in the oval office... like any other man would...
the media cannot get enough of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and other Democrat leaders calling republicans, libertarians, or anyone else against the health care plan "N a z i s" "tea baggers" and even racist. they have no qualms over being "outraged" over People more to the right wishing harm to obama, yet where was that same outrage when people were hanging bush in effigy? or when he was compared to Hitler?
there does seem to be a bit of a double standard in the media at large. I doubt that it is government sponsored. but its out there.
I'll have to look at your answer more closely tomorrow, but at first blush, I would say that more or less I've always viewed government as a necessary evil (especially federal gov) and that, in simplistic terms, smaller is better. But I feel Liberatarians' solutions are too rigid in their approach to preserve individual liberties. The Founders got it right, but society (and gov along with it) has evolved. So I think it's a very nuanced thing in terms of a balance. But the scales have definitely tipped. This started long before Obama (Bush was a terrible culprit too) but Obama has been anything but the centrist he promised. I just feel that his administration is going to continue to push us over the brink. For instance, how in the ever living EFF did the federal government get itself into the car business??
I agree with you that rights are sacred and to provide others with "goods and servies" like health care, etc. infringes on our rights in the strictest interpretation. I guess I would say I'm ok with that infrigement to a certain degree, but the threshold with which I'm OK has been crossed long, long, long ago.
But I feel Liberatarians' solutions are too rigid in their approach to preserve individual liberties.
this line is interesting to me.
the solution is to rigid for whom? the government? or the individual?
the libertarian solution is often to let the individual make a decision for themselves. this solution is infinitely flexible because every single person can decide for themselves.
that is, unless you are the government. in that case you are extremely limited, just as our constitution and founding fathers wanted.
yes, we have grown and evolved as a nation.
but, there will always be a few simple truths.
...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Comments
One thing that would honestly reduce the cost of healthcare in this country would be TORT reform. But the Democrats can't do that because it will piss off the trial lawyers, many of whom donate a large portion of money to the party.
i would be very careful using blanket statements.
i know many democrats. I know many republicans. I know many libertarians. I know many people that dont give a *** about politics.
so few of any of them are racist in any way that to use a blanket statement like that is a terrible mistake.
are there racists in the republican party? probably.
are there racists in the democrat party? probably
are there racists in the group of people that dont give a ***? probably.
call me an optimist, but i believe that most people in this nation have grown to understand that in fact, we are all created equal. Because of this we are closer than ever to the colorblind society that Dr. King spoke of.
unfortunately, there will probably always be some *** out there spewing racist views.
if you compare attitudes today compared to 60 years ago.... we are way closer. i didnt say we are there. and i did admit that there are some racist people out there ( both white and black) but we are moving in the right direction. you can "feel" all you want but blanket statements are a classic logical fallacy. it is called the "hasty generalization fallacy" --to be more specific.
A hasty generalization draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case, or small number of cases.
what applies to one or some of a group does not necessarily apply to the group. your example is almost classic. you said: though your theory may true to some of the people, it does not apply to all. I would venture that not even 5% of the people that go to those events are fighting the reform simply because the president is not white and we have a Hispanic Supreme court member. just because you didnt say they were racist does not mean that the actions you are pointing out are negative race based actions. this equals racism.
So I think I'm reading and understanding this right. This isn't official yet, but "they" are going to try to make this happen.
I would like to have a surgery on my esophageal spincter. My belly is broke, so it's like having a pot (my stomache) boiling a bunch of food with out a lid. If I did a hand stand, everything I just ate would come right out. My doctor has recommended this surgery after way too many evaluations, tests, and an incredibly nerve racking biopsy. What they found can potentially turn cancerous, but the surgery would really help prevent it. But if I'm understanding this right, my surgery might not be an "approved" procedure which would cost me more to get the surgery?
-mass media's point of view
-ignorance/arrogance of Congressman/government
-the health care bill
-the need to inform yourself
i found it both interesting and infuriating to read the well documented, well referenced, and well thought out article by Jim Babka of DownsizeDC.org titled WHO Should Read the Bill and Get Their Facts Straight?
again, Jim Babak makes a good point in this article:
You Might Be a Racist
what this translates to is this:
Even though 54% of the people Say Passing No Healthcare Reform is Better Than Passing the current Congressional Plan
and even though Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan
they are going to do it anyway.
the government is going to force more than 50% of the population to participate in a program that they dont want to participate in.
... and then tax us to do it.
this is a clear and obvious violation of individual rights. it goes against everything that the USA was founded on:
Life
liberty
the pursuit of happiness.
not to mention the 10th amendment...
i dont want to take part in this and i am being forced to (according to page 16 of the bill) can someone tell me how that is not oppressive? seriously. i want to know.
yet the people that are standing up to this oppression and government take over are the ones being compared to N A Z I S
its no wonder why Obama's Approval numbers are going down and disapproval numbers are going up
and the Presidential Approval Index is at NEGATIVE NINE (as of 8-18-09)
with Conservatives Now Outnumbering Liberals in All 50 States the democrats better think hard about what they vote for. the 2010 elections are just around the corner
Fantastic
this is why it all comes down to the simple fact that health care is not a Right. it is a good or service.
Rights cannot be given or taken away. Rights can only be recognized or violated.
my biggest problem with the libertarians is their PR. everyone seems to think that they are all nuts. though I AM nuts, to assume that the entire movement is nuts based off of me is a sweeping generalization; or a classic logical fallacy.
now that i have a bit more time i can actually give a "real" and better response to this last series of posts. its been on my mind all day. thats one of the reasons why i like this forum. you guys make me think. thats great in my book what was the tipping point? or is it just starting to tip? where where you before and where are you now? this is a fantastic set of questions right here.
the point of me saying it is a good or service is to point it out. i am pointing it out because of the next logical point. that point:
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
t’s a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it. The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life—the life that he alone owns.
so it isnt so much that "the government shouldnt be involved at al all" but more that people have a right to seek goods and services, a right does not ensure that someone will acquire something.
this is why we must make the distinction between "Rights" and "goods and services"
another reason why i keep bringing up this difference is that a Right does not cost anyone anything. your right to speak your mind does not cost me a cent. your right to live does not cost me a cent. your right to seek joy in any way you wish (providing you do not violate the rights of others) does not cost me a cent.
goods and services cost money. just because the government pays for health insurance does not mean that it is free. there is still a cost involved. since there is a cost involved, it cannot be a right. there are a few things going on here.
the libertarian party IS good at pointing out things that the government is doing that are wrong. I will agree with you on that 100%
their solutions are often simple, and may seem to be lacking in complexity. this does not make them wrong.
the nature of government (as a general entity) is to grow and expand and take things over slowly; to intervene in the lives of the individual for either more power for the government or for "the good of the people"
since this is the nature of government, and libertarians are against any and all violations of rights of the individual, no matter what the intentions of the program are, the solution most often proposed by a libertarian is for the government to stop whatever program the government is running.
this tends to go against conventional wisdom. conventional wisdom is that "something must be done!"
that is not true. often times a free market or natural evolving solution that requires no government action, just actions of the individual, will make the problem go away. as long as the actions taken by those individuals to correct whatever problem it is do not violate the rights of others... we are all cool and the gang.
to me, this is where the government steps in. the government's job is to protect the rights of the individual.
as far as the situation with health care goes, i have found an article that describes a much needed reform to our current system. the article is titled Seven Simple Rules for Health Care Reform
this article does a much better job of laying out a plan than i ever could, and comes up with a few ideas that many have not heard of.
here is the first paragraph:
"The status quo in American health care is indefensible—an expensive regulatory and bureaucratic mess. What that calls for, however, is not more layers of regulation and complicated mandates. Nor should government take over health care completely and run it as part of a political spoils system. i agree with this statement 100%. the military is the only government program that i would even consider close to a "success" ... and they sure as heck arent turning a profit. the reason why i would call them successful (even though i dont agree with the why the commander in chief uses them all the time) is because the military is designed to protect the rights of the people of the US. And they have done so very well for many, many years. we live in one of the safest countries in the world. Americans do not fear that another country will come in here and take us over. for the most part, the only people Americans fear, is other Americans. (but i digress...) again, i agree with this.
I know to an outsider, i may sound like some nut job that thinks there isnt a single word on the TV, radio, magazine, or in print that isnt signed off on by some KGB-esque government run department.
i do know that this isnt the case
there is a good amount of evidence out there that backs up the theory that much of the media has a bias to the left. the fact that it is harder to find serious criticism of Obama (or many other Democrat leaders) than it is to find criticism of many of the Republican, or Libertarian leaders.
often times democrats are cast in a far more favorable light than republicans.
lets put it this way...
if John McCain had ever drown some chick in his car and not called for help for hours, he would not have a job in the US Government anymore.
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's affair with an Argentinian woman has now reached the point where impeachment was being talked about. The media ate that up.
Clinton was just having fun in the oval office... like any other man would...
the media cannot get enough of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and other Democrat leaders calling republicans, libertarians, or anyone else against the health care plan "N a z i s" "tea baggers" and even racist. they have no qualms over being "outraged" over People more to the right wishing harm to obama, yet where was that same outrage when people were hanging bush in effigy? or when he was compared to Hitler?
there does seem to be a bit of a double standard in the media at large. I doubt that it is government sponsored. but its out there.
I agree with you that rights are sacred and to provide others with "goods and servies" like health care, etc. infringes on our rights in the strictest interpretation. I guess I would say I'm ok with that infrigement to a certain degree, but the threshold with which I'm OK has been crossed long, long, long ago.
the solution is to rigid for whom? the government? or the individual?
the libertarian solution is often to let the individual make a decision for themselves. this solution is infinitely flexible because every single person can decide for themselves.
that is, unless you are the government. in that case you are extremely limited, just as our constitution and founding fathers wanted.
yes, we have grown and evolved as a nation.
but, there will always be a few simple truths.
...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.