Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 05:56am PT
|
You lost me at:
The care providers that are officially government employees are often ER docs or permanent hospital staff.
Look around at government employees on any given day. Are those the people you want working on you in the ER?
Not offering a profit motive to healthcare means there is no motive to care beyond the smattering of people who are in healthcare simply on the strength of compassion. Which is noble, but not an indicator of good care.
Government subsidized healthcare is just that, a subsidy. You are taking money from someone, somewhere and giving it to another person.
It's not inherently an awful thought, but at least be honest enough with yourself to call it what it is rather than trying to bother with all these euphemistic names that try to make it sound like its something else entirely.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 06:04am PT
|
And maybe, just maybe.. try to see past the socialism/liberalism/conservativism labels. They don't serve us.
Watched the news last night for a change. Apparently Bernie was in Boise yesterday or a few days ago. Speaking at Boise State not surprisingly.
They interviewed some woman who took the afternoon off to go see him and got offended when someone called her a Socialist when she stated she would vote for him.
Just because you don't like the label that suits you doesn't mean its not important.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 06:22am PT
|
willbeer posted You are right here on the internet,it shows the sources,look it up .
I have.
Edit;Kind of like Bernies"fuzzy math".
You know you Could find out ,but why ,when you can just denounce it and that becomes Your fact.
I have looked up the sources in the past because this is an old meme. It's not fuzzy math, it's contorted math. I appreciate the message but when you taint the numbers it robs it of authenticity. You should take your own advice and, you know, find out.
madbolter posted Given that we've decided to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor," let's reintroduce the notion of individual responsibility and priorities. As one Finnish government source said, "If you want to spend all of it on vodka, that's fine. But there's no more welfare." I'm all for the idea of people being allowed to prioritize their spending any way they see fit, with NO welfare. YOU get to enjoy ALL of the consequences of your priorities.
The ideological contrivances involved in your post are interesting. Most "welfare" is given without many restrictions or, in the case of the EITC, none at all. People who oppose welfare are the ones who continually demand narrower restrictions on how the money can be spent. Also, how is giving money to poor people "not welfare" but giving money to specifically buy food or pay rent "welfare?"
You're also perpetuating the myth that these folks started off with all the benefits and opportunities that everyone else did and just prioritized poorly. Yes, some people made bad decisions and wound up in a bad spot, but many simply lost jobs and were never able to recover, got sick or had a family member get sick, simply lack basic employable characteristics or never had the opportunities to become truly financially independent to begin with.
Escopeta posted Look around at government employees on any given day. Are those the people you want working on you in the ER?
Not offering a profit motive to healthcare means there is no motive to care beyond the smattering of people who are in healthcare simply on the strength of compassion. Which is noble, but not an indicator of good care.
I work in non-profit healthcare (as do the vast, vast majority of Americans) and, while I'm sure this kind of stuff does great on libertarian forums and think tanks, it has no connection to reality and is not borne out by actual observation. You could start by explaining why most developed countries with fully socialized systems have better outcomes AND spend less money than the United States.
That being said, money CAN be an important motivator. A lot of quality initiatives become effective only when a price tag is attached to them but that has nothing to do with for profit vs not for profit care and everything to do with managing budgets and maintaining personal income. My hospital isn't trying to make money to pay shareholders, we're trying to make money so that we can provide better care and reach more patients.
|
|
kattz
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:42am PT
|
Sanders has a mourning day today, I bet, I mean poor terrorists, they had to die... US is responsible, didn't let them in and give them free everything, cause poor things weren't white, US drove them to suicide, obviously. "Give me your garbage, give me your evil". Hope he goes to Calais jungle camp to protest the cruelty and stays there.
Good thing his greasy hand won't be pawing middle class wallets, that was his full intent.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 08:19am PT
|
The one truly positive aspect is that coverage cannot be refused.
I do agree with that.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 08:27am PT
|
Yes, some people made bad decisions and wound up in a bad spot, but many simply lost jobs and were never able to recover, got sick or had a family member get sick, simply lack basic employable characteristics or never had the opportunities to become truly financially independent to begin with.
I'm not "perpetuating the myth." I simply don't care about your distinction. Oh, I know, immediately everybody's going to dogpile me with "See, madbolter doesn't CARE." And that would be incorrect.
As my tax returns show, even WITH how much government already extracts from me (and I AM pissed about corporate welfare, BTW!), I am in the top 1% of charitable givers in this country. So, I DO put my money where my mouth is and genuinely care.
But your distinction presumes that government has the RIGHT (indeed the DUTY) to FORCE me to "smooth over" the lives of others, and it does NOT. I don't care about the "situation" that needs the "smoothing over." I don't care if by YOUR (or government's) evaluation this or that "situation" is "legitimate need" or not. FORCING me to take money out of my pocket to hand it to somebody else in "need" is theft, plain and simple.
And, again, the fact that I have this basic principle does NOT mean that I "don't care" about people. I certainly do, and my huge proportion of charitable giving evidences that I do.
What I do NOT "care about" is some fine-grained distinction of "legitimacy" when the government is STEALING from me to hand MY money (without my consent) to other individuals for which I am in principle purchasing no good or service that benefits me. Corporate welfare is NO different! "Too big to fail" is complete BS.
And if it's BS for corporations, it's BS for individuals. It's BS for healthcare. It's just BS to "legitimize" stealing from me to "share" with "others," be they corporations or individuals.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 09:09am PT
|
madbolter posted But your distinction presumes that government has the RIGHT (indeed the DUTY) to FORCE me to "smooth over" the lives of others, and it does NOT.
I find it perpetually curious that people insist the government doesn't have the right to do things that it obviously has the right to do just because they don't like it. The government has the right to levy taxes and then allocate those taxes through the legislative process. To think of this as "stealing" is victimhood at its worst. Your ability to make money depends on systems the rest of us built and maintain. You are no more being stolen from than you are stealing when you drive on a highway or play at a city park.
Secondly, you suffer from the illusion that ending this government spending would save you money when it would likely cost much, much more. Our economic system works really well for some people, not as well for others. Americans are completely wrapped up in the idea that income is a direct reflection of personal value. It isn't. And what someone earns has little reflection on one's value to society. In the past the solution for a broken political and economic system was revolution. Ensuring those who are not benefiting from the system have their basic needs met is not only a demonstration of our values as a people, it is an insurance policy against bloodshed.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 09:11am PT
|
Madbolter, are you ok to live in a world with more crime, more disease, more suffering? Do you not see a role for government to ameliorate these, which would ostensibly be Christian objectives? Or do you want a society that is increasingly polarized with the rich folks living behind walled gardens and private security details to defend against roving mobs of bandits?
Sure there is waste and people taking advantage of government-run programs that are designed to help people in need. But, like democracy, can you think of a better alternative when considering the world (edit: or at least our country) as a whole and not just your personal benefit?
I perceive that your compassion for humanity and civilization is clouded by your frustration with human imperfection and inefficiency.
What if your wife gets a rare disease with expensive treatments, and you have to spend your kids' college fund and sell your house to treat her? What will you do during retirement? What if you are found to be at fault in a car accident after you stayed up all night for work, you get sued and all of your assets are seized to pay for the other person who can't work any more? What if your mother is a crack whore and by 7 years old you are making deliveries for a local gang? What if you don't have time to do your homework in high school because your parents have you help them clean houses for family income? What if you have time, but your single parent is working all the time and you are on your own and nobody you know has gone to college, and it didn't occur to you that it might be a possibility for you?
There are so many circumstances beyond our personal experience where some outside help would elevate not just the people and families in question, but ultimately it is an investment in the future of our society. Do we want to sow the seeds to push people into drug addiction and crimes of desperation, or pull people toward becoming more productive members of society?
I don't see a better way of dealing with this than government programs. It will not happen if we rely on the benevolence of individuals. Do we benevolently volunteer our income to pay for roads or national defense? No. We complain about taxes but we do it. We as a society are elevated or lowered in large part by how we handle our weakest members.
Sure we can focus on how to better manage programs, how to avoid waste, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 09:55am PT
|
Your ability to make money depends on systems the rest of us built and maintain. You are no more being stolen from than you are stealing when you drive on a highway or play at a city park.
You guys do the same conflation again and again.
The government does have the right to levy taxes. However, it does not have the right to levy taxes to do just anything it wants. If you truly believe that it does, then you have NO basis upon which to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate governments. If you truly believe that, then you have NO basis to make any sense of the content of Federalist #10.
The government has no legitimate right to, for example, take ALL of my money and then tell me EXACTLY and ENTIRELY what "needs" and even "wants" I have, so it can thereby "provide" for me every detail of my life. That is the direction we are headed, and the government's legal right to tax does NOT equate to a legitimate right to FORCE me into such a mold.
Another conflation concerns the distinction between wealth-redistribution among individuals and legitimate taxation for goods and services that directly benefit who is being taxed.
When government taxes me for a road or other infrastructure, the people being taxed directly benefit from the roads that are built and maintained. Same thing with police, fire departments, and other such good and services. When I am taxed for these things, I enjoy a direct benefit from those goods and services.
The same cannot be said regarding what I call "wealth redistribution." When I am taxed to pay for the health care or welfare of other individuals, I do not receive a direct benefit in the form of goods or services for which I am paying. Instead, my money just goes from me to somebody else, and I enjoy no benefit from that transfer. I am "purchasing" nothing with such taxes.
You can respond that with healthcare, for example, I am "buying" less costs overall, as now the people are not just going to the emergency room for free. But this is a mistake, as the very fact that people DO go the emergency room for "free" and I end up paying for that means that ALREADY I am being ripped off. The idea that by Obamacare I'm being ripped off "less" (which I deny anyway) is a "net gain" is not an actual answer to the fact that I am being ripped off one way or the other. It's just saying that ripping me off via Obamacare is a "better" way to rip me off.
It IS theft to take my money and hand it to somebody else when I am buying no good or service in exchange for my taxes. And even government has no right to steal from me!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:00am PT
|
madbolter posted The government does have the right to levy taxes. However, it does not have the right to levy taxes to do just anything it wants. If you truly believe that it does, then you have NO basis upon which to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate governments. If you truly believe that, then you have NO basis to make any sense of the content of Federalist #10.
Yes it does so? The difference between a legitimate and illegitimate democracy depends on whether or not those in power were elected with adherence to the constitution. It's that simple.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Seems like pretty broad language to me. I mean it even uses the word "welfare!"
It IS theft to take my money and hand it to somebody else when I am buying no good or service in exchange for my taxes. And even government has no right to steal from me!
whiteprivilege.txt
You can respond that with healthcare, for example, I am "buying" less costs overall, as now the people are not just going to the emergency room for free. But this is a mistake, as the very fact that people DO go the emergency room for "free" and I end up paying for that means that ALREADY I am being ripped off. The idea that by Obamacare I'm being ripped off "less" (which I deny anyway) is a "net gain" is not an actual answer to the fact that I am being ripped off one way or the other. It's just saying that ripping me off via Obamacare is a "better" way to rip me off.
I have heard a rumor that some diseases actually spread from person to person. Has anyone heard of that? I'd love to see some documents if that's true I might just be making it up. I have also heard that when people are injured or ill they often can't work or care for their families which has an effect on other people and to society as a whole. Again, I might just be inventing this. Escopeta knows all about healthcare. Is any of this true, Escopeta?
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:03am PT
|
We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Not just your personal safety and happiness. "Their" means all of us.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:12am PT
|
Well, taking money from people makes them unhappy as well.
Quite the conundrum you're in with your "all for one" argument.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:14am PT
|
I guess we should have some sort of representative government with the power to mediate disputes and find compromises to make the best possible attempt at meeting everyone's needs without coming to bloodshed. If only people had thought of this 240 years ago!
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:16am PT
|
"The government does have the right to levy taxes. However, it does not have the right to levy taxes to do just anything it wants. If you truly believe that it does, then you have NO basis upon which to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate governments."
Exactly where can I read about this right? Do you have a link?
It just sounds like your subjective political view point that is not based on any facts at all.
I neither see how this should have anything at all with legitimate and illegitimate governments. That question should be if the government rule according to the will of the people or not (and sorry it is not true that everyone follows your political views).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:20am PT
|
I mean it even uses the word "welfare!"
Wow... are you serious?
I give up. You win.
This country IS totally divided. About half think more or less like you, and about half thing more or less like me.
The one half is not going to convince the other half. And NO politician is going to "unify" either parties or people. We have wildly different visions of the role of government.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:23am PT
|
When government taxes me for a road or other infrastructure, the people being taxed directly benefit from the roads that are built and maintained. Same thing with police, fire departments, and other such good and services. When I am taxed for these things, I enjoy a direct benefit from those goods and services.
The same cannot be said regarding what I call "wealth redistribution." When I am taxed to pay for the health care or welfare of other individuals, I do not receive a direct benefit in the form of goods or services for which I am paying. Instead, my money just goes from me to somebody else, and I enjoy no benefit from that transfer. I am "purchasing" nothing with such taxes.
You could make that same argument against free public education--and others have. I think there is no doubt however that society, as a whole, does benefit from a both healthy and educated population.
Curt
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:27am PT
|
We have wildly different visions of the role of government.
What really is the fundamental purpose of government? I think keeping its citizens free from harm is pretty high up there. A country that fails to keep its citizens safe has failed in its primary purpose for being. In achieving that goal, I believe that public healthcare should be provided as a right--as a part of the necessary minimum infrastructure that derives from taxes--much like the military, roads, etc.
Curt
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:30am PT
|
The one half is not going to convince the other half. And NO politician is going to "unify" either parties or people. We have wildly different visions of the role of government.
^^^^^^ This.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:31am PT
|
What really is the fundamental purpose of government? I think keeping its citizens free from harm is pretty high up there.
And God smashes another kitty with a sledgehammer
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:40am PT
|
madbolter posted Wow... are you serious?
I give up. You win.
Madbolter, if you want to have a discussion about what the government "should" do, I'm all ears. But you keep arguing that the government "can't" do things that it very obviously can. I also point you back to your statement earlier where you said "welfare" was bad but you could stomach the government giving money to poor people.
madbolter posted This country IS totally divided. About half think more or less like you, and about half thing more or less like me.
The vast majority of the country thinks welfare is fine, but a certain chunk more likely to agree with you think that non-whites just don't deserve it. That's why "welfare queen" is such a great racial dog whistle.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!