>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?

How does that work?

Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...

I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.

I'd friggen love it.

Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.

I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.

(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?

Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?

You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.

And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.

It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.

Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.

A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."

>> ^blankfist:
Making an observation where people spend more liberally based on personal freedoms does not equate to 'Go USA and fuck the rest' but surely you will find a cheap and favorable audience with nanny-apologists like NetRunner.
There's no proof that we tip more because it's part of our "culture". You cannot manufacture statistics for your convenience. Is it also part of our culture to be the most generous when it comes to giving to charities, because that, too, is a provable statistic - and I don't mean government aid or any of that shit. I'm talking individuals freely choosing to give to charities. What a strange "culture" that is indeed.


There's no proof Americans tip more because they have so much more individual freedom (as you seem to think) than everybody else either.

And a more plausible reason to why Americans give so much to charity (and thanks for supplying us with some proof of that btw) is because so much of it is tax deductable, which is a government incentive to donate money. To give a frame of reference, where I live you can only get tax deductions for donations given to a small number of organisations (government approved ones), and people still donate a lot of money.

...and stop trying to use random facts as proof of your personal political viewpoints, blankfist.

>> ^peggedbea:

Making an observation where people spend more liberally based on personal freedoms does not equate to 'Go USA and fuck the rest' but surely you will find a cheap and favorable audience with nanny-apologists like NetRunner.

There's no proof that we tip more because it's part of our "culture". You cannot manufacture statistics for your convenience. Is it also part of our culture to be the most generous when it comes to giving to charities, because that, too, is a provable statistic - and I don't mean government aid or any of that shit. I'm talking individuals freely choosing to give to charities. What a strange "culture" that is indeed.

Seems a direct violation of, "First, do no harm."

These patients should have to pay for all medical treatment out of their own pockets, even as citizens in countries with socialized medicine.

They should also be barred from all government aid associated with their condition and barred from suing anyone on account of their chosen "disability".

Even after all that, these patients are making themselves an additional burden on others whether intended or not. A firefighter has to run upstairs in a burning building to save you because your legs were voluntarily removed?

government aid eh

wasn't there a movie about this? seven deadly something or another?

>> ^imstellar28:
I've read two books by Rand. Two. I haven't even read atlas shrugged. Why are you pegging me as a devout follower?

Well, because you say things like this:

F ck your diseased philosophy, f ck your majority oppression. I'm not going to swallow the sh t you're selling. I'm going to be the voice for the minority you seek to silence; I'm going to defend the rights of humans you would wantonly trample on.

So you want to impose your ideals on others, without winning a majority of support, because you think you're helping human rights. Rights which essentially consist of the right to never receive government aid, and the right for those who pay taxes to pay none.

Great. That's a lovely set of morals ya got there. You'd be more at home in the Republican party than you'd otherwise think.

Tell me, is altruism a good thing, a bad thing, or the worst thing?

Is selfishness a good thing, a bad thing, or the best thing?

It's one thing to talk about the pragmatic benefits of a smaller government, it's a wholly different thing to think yourself morally superior for nursing an intention to alter the government of your country through anti-democratic means to fit your own worldview.

Screaming at us about how you think we're shitburgers just makes you look crazed and angry, not wise and morally superior.

It's sickening what crazed "freedom fighters" would do in the most pointless of goals. Tibet does not deserve nearly as much publicity as it is receiving. The people are not being oppressed anywhere as near the way media portrays. Those who support Tibetan independence are also indirectly supporting known international terrorists. Tibet has never been an independent state, and there is little practical reason for it to become one. Their dilution of religion giving them happiness is about as practical as communism. The people there are impoverished, it would be a human rights disaster to cut off Tibet from Chinese government aid. As far as getting arrested for protesting, try a stunt like that here in the US and you'll get arrested in the same fashion. People need a reminder of how biased international media is. News agencies like to sully the reputations of rival nations, only because their own governments support such actions.

^ My main point was that in comparison to other countries, we're no welfare state. If you want to launch into an argument about how all government programs are wrong, that's fine, but America is as close to your libertarian ideal as I know of outside the middle east.

I generally think Libertarians (and Republicans) are Democrats who just haven't lost their job, or lost their medical insurance yet.

I'm not a Democrat for lack of having read studies from people saying "government programs don't work", that's for sure.

Social Security is a good topic to take up with me -- I largely agree that it's gotta go, or at least get overhauled. I think it's an example of a government plan that's done a lot of good over the years, but whose workings were based on assumptions about lifespan/population growth/standard of living that aren't true anymore, and needs to be updated. Or maybe not.

I don't think it's some sort of proof that all government aid plans are doomed to failure.

As for health care, the main thrust of the Obama (and Clinton) position on health care is to encourage the insurance companies to focus more on prevention, covering dietitians, maybe even gym membership, regular checkups, etc. People can waste their time all they like at the ER, they have triage controlling the flow of patients already, and I think it's better if people take the judgment of "better safe than sorry" with a trip to the hospital anyways. If it's trivial, they'll have a long wait, and a doc who'll be eager to show 'em the door.

It is a lot more complex than fire houses and roads, but you're making an assumption that the government can't deal with complexity. We trust them to regulate trade with other countries, our financial system, and the military already. All of those are arguably more complex than a government plan on health care would need to be.

Despite your statement to the contrary, not all national health plans are in a state of failure -- in fact, while most of them are running over budget, none of them would consume the same percentage of GDP to fully fund than our non-system system does (most nations' health care plans are holding steady around 6-10%, while ours is 16% and rising quickly). Their general statistics on health are generally better than ours too, with more choice, and shorter waits than I have with my employer-based HMO plan.

In any case, we're getting wildly OT. RP may not be a neocon, but he is still a Republican, and I'd say someone put some leverage on him to fall in line and talk bad about Obama. In the past, while he's not been overflowing with praise for Obama, he has said he prefers his foreign policy to that of McCain's. The comments in this vid differ from all of the other statements I've seen him make about Obama, in that this time he's using the Republican talking points (albeit some of the tamer ones).

Kinda sad, really. Makes you wonder who else might influence him.

*cou(CFR)gh*