Skyla Doragono
Sponsor
M'kay, since this seems to be turning into a real discussion... *PUNT*
American Healthcare
- Thread starter Xaixis
- Start date
Stupid Penguin
Member
Venetia":1qa0m2k1 said:
Not everyone is as lucky as you. Last time I was sick, all of the free clinics were always full and my only choice was to go to a 'cheap' clinic at Walmart as opposed to going to a real doctor. There, I paid $110 to be examined (I had strep throat) and then was given a prescription for antibiotics (came out to like 4 pills) which cost me $200.
Another time, I woke up in extreme pain. I couldn't move my neck at all without feeling the worst pain I've ever felt in my life. Because I couldn't see a doctor, I was forced to do nothing but miss a week of work and lay in bed because moving at all was horrible.
Even if healtcare isn't universal, it should at least be cheaper or easier to get. With my income, I'm pretty much fucked in terms of any medical attention.
Venetia":3mi0rfg4 said:
Oh no! Don't turn America into a socialist country! If we have the government giving us free stuff then we will be just like the commies!
Oh wait a second...
Isn't education, fire department, police station, national defence, and libraries all free? I mean sure we get taxed but so is healthcare. But I guess THOSE don't count but HEALTHCARE does!
Oh and what happens if you slip up on your job and get fired, sure you don't have your nice paycheck but the REAL killer is losing the deal you had with your benefits. And you say that you only pay $16 a month for healthcare? Well good for you, most americans though pay around 200-500 buckaroos a month... hell I'd rather give that to the government to INSURE that I get treatment instead of a company who is constantly trying to find ways to screw me over or not give me what I need.
High Hopes
Awesome Bro
I have to agree with Venetia on this. I want to be able to choose my own doctor, pay for my own insurance without it being forced down my throat. I don't want to pay for Joe Nobody's drug seeking behavior. People are paying too much in taxes right now. People can barely support themselves. Hitting them with more taxes is a bad idea right now.
Sweeties and cutie muffins, if it were up to me (read: LIBERTARIAN), then I wouldn't be taxed a fuckin penny and all this shit would be handled by corporate entities or partnerships. Or, a less severe route: allow me to CHOOSE what I am taxed for.
Let's say Uncle Sam says I have to pay out 20% of my shit to SOMETHING, and atleast 5% (negotiable) automatically goes to 911, fire, police, military, etc. (to be increased should I so choose). That means that I can plug all my money into Education, should I deem that important. Or plug my money into like 20 different things, so that the things that I find important receive funding. And instead of paying into Social Security (which I may never see in my lifetime, and if I die, then my family will never see it either), it all goes into a personal IRA.
THAT's democracy on a financial level. Because the shit that's unimportant to the people will be ignored, and the shit that is will flourish.
Oh, but I WANT fat ass rich old white guys who I'll never meet directing my money! Obviously this upper echelon of society and power knows what I, Jane Q. Public, want, right?
I'll never understand why extreme liberals sit there and bitch about what the government does, and then GIVE THEM MORE OF THEIR MONEY.
WHY!?
SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS A GOOD IDEA PLEASE
That was slightly off topic but it was explaining my stance on how far people can shove socialist tendencies straight up their ass because it's fundamentally broken right at the very start.
--
On healthcare specifically.
People ARE taxed in America for healthcare, sweetie. Social security. Medicare. Medicaid. Ring a bell?
And don't feed me any bullshit about how people aren't as "lucky" as me. Yes, I'm fortunate to have a job right now that has good medical coverage, but I've been in plenty that don't. I have over $2500 in medical bills as we speak. Yet I don't rue the system. Why? Because I don't want handouts! Government handouts foster a lazy public, who don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
I agree with you that insurance should be more affordable, definitely! But you know where to look at that first?
The medical care facilities!
When I had a 5 minute exploratory procedure, it cost me $3000. I only had a specialist and one nurse present, a small dose of laughing gas, and used a room and a bed for approximately 45 minutes. That's not the insurance company's problem that it costs so fucking much.
If the government decides to funnel money into healthcare, I petition that they direct it into healthcare centers THEMSELVES. It would be cheaper and simpler. Were there partial govm't subsidies for costs of hospital operation, and more scrutiny on the profit margins of hospital equipment and tools, then the cost of medical care would go down and the insurance companies would not have to charge as much, and the public would pay lower deductibles.
And, best of all, no govm't handouts to make the public any more lazy than they already are.
Welfare is totally broken. What makes you think that the same govm't who established it could handle a similar, but FAR FAR FAR FAR LARGER AND MORE COMPLICATED animal any better?
Let's say Uncle Sam says I have to pay out 20% of my shit to SOMETHING, and atleast 5% (negotiable) automatically goes to 911, fire, police, military, etc. (to be increased should I so choose). That means that I can plug all my money into Education, should I deem that important. Or plug my money into like 20 different things, so that the things that I find important receive funding. And instead of paying into Social Security (which I may never see in my lifetime, and if I die, then my family will never see it either), it all goes into a personal IRA.
THAT's democracy on a financial level. Because the shit that's unimportant to the people will be ignored, and the shit that is will flourish.
Oh, but I WANT fat ass rich old white guys who I'll never meet directing my money! Obviously this upper echelon of society and power knows what I, Jane Q. Public, want, right?
I'll never understand why extreme liberals sit there and bitch about what the government does, and then GIVE THEM MORE OF THEIR MONEY.
WHY!?
SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS A GOOD IDEA PLEASE
That was slightly off topic but it was explaining my stance on how far people can shove socialist tendencies straight up their ass because it's fundamentally broken right at the very start.
--
On healthcare specifically.
People ARE taxed in America for healthcare, sweetie. Social security. Medicare. Medicaid. Ring a bell?
And don't feed me any bullshit about how people aren't as "lucky" as me. Yes, I'm fortunate to have a job right now that has good medical coverage, but I've been in plenty that don't. I have over $2500 in medical bills as we speak. Yet I don't rue the system. Why? Because I don't want handouts! Government handouts foster a lazy public, who don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
I agree with you that insurance should be more affordable, definitely! But you know where to look at that first?
The medical care facilities!
When I had a 5 minute exploratory procedure, it cost me $3000. I only had a specialist and one nurse present, a small dose of laughing gas, and used a room and a bed for approximately 45 minutes. That's not the insurance company's problem that it costs so fucking much.
If the government decides to funnel money into healthcare, I petition that they direct it into healthcare centers THEMSELVES. It would be cheaper and simpler. Were there partial govm't subsidies for costs of hospital operation, and more scrutiny on the profit margins of hospital equipment and tools, then the cost of medical care would go down and the insurance companies would not have to charge as much, and the public would pay lower deductibles.
And, best of all, no govm't handouts to make the public any more lazy than they already are.
Welfare is totally broken. What makes you think that the same govm't who established it could handle a similar, but FAR FAR FAR FAR LARGER AND MORE COMPLICATED animal any better?
Look, I'm 14yrs old. Currently I don't pay any taxes or any sort of billing (well my cellphone but that's about it)
Obviously my point of view is one of a moral, public appreciation kind of thing going on. I am naive, I am not doubting that. I believe in everyone coming together to pull the nation by it's breeches.
I think that it is wrong for your life to be in the hands of a company who actually give bonuses to doctors who deny the most claims, and I think it's wrong for them to use tiny fragments to ruin your life... literally.
My view of life is simple, life is irreplaceable, you get one shot and after that your done. I think it's wrong for that decision to be in the hands of people who couldn't give a shit if their clients died, as long as they increased their profits. I think it's wrong that our country is so corrupt that businesses are actually getting away with what they want because they can buy off their congressmen votes and influences. I think that the government should fear it's people... not the other way around. I think that we should be ABLE to trust our government... but unfortunately we can't because they can be bought easily.
But then again these are just my OPINIONS. I have faults yes I know, but this is how I view, this is how I was raised. I am not going to say I'm right your wrong, we both have our own views. Hell, I could simply stop bitching and move to canada. But I don't (well currently I don't have a choice but I don't see it in my future.).
The fact is that both systems work, one is a more capital/fair way and one in a more human way. It just depends on which you want. They both have their benefits, both have their faults. To some one is more crucial to them to the situation, to others - they will never get a cold in their lives and it would be pointless for them to be taxed out the ass for something they do not use.
Obviously my point of view is one of a moral, public appreciation kind of thing going on. I am naive, I am not doubting that. I believe in everyone coming together to pull the nation by it's breeches.
I think that it is wrong for your life to be in the hands of a company who actually give bonuses to doctors who deny the most claims, and I think it's wrong for them to use tiny fragments to ruin your life... literally.
My view of life is simple, life is irreplaceable, you get one shot and after that your done. I think it's wrong for that decision to be in the hands of people who couldn't give a shit if their clients died, as long as they increased their profits. I think it's wrong that our country is so corrupt that businesses are actually getting away with what they want because they can buy off their congressmen votes and influences. I think that the government should fear it's people... not the other way around. I think that we should be ABLE to trust our government... but unfortunately we can't because they can be bought easily.
But then again these are just my OPINIONS. I have faults yes I know, but this is how I view, this is how I was raised. I am not going to say I'm right your wrong, we both have our own views. Hell, I could simply stop bitching and move to canada. But I don't (well currently I don't have a choice but I don't see it in my future.).
The fact is that both systems work, one is a more capital/fair way and one in a more human way. It just depends on which you want. They both have their benefits, both have their faults. To some one is more crucial to them to the situation, to others - they will never get a cold in their lives and it would be pointless for them to be taxed out the ass for something they do not use.
US won't ever have health care like the UK because it is too left-wing.
I studied the healthcare of the UK for GCSE, when the UK NHS was designed it applied for people who worked and children, but later on they changed it to everyone, so people in the UK can go without jobs and now old people are living longer and hospitals have to perform operations on the elderly, so a 100 year old woman can have a heart transplant even though she isn't putting anything back into our society.
But I'd hate to ever have to pay for being ill, we have that option with private health care, which has most things a thousand times better than the NHS.
Both sides have benefits and drawbacks.
I studied the healthcare of the UK for GCSE, when the UK NHS was designed it applied for people who worked and children, but later on they changed it to everyone, so people in the UK can go without jobs and now old people are living longer and hospitals have to perform operations on the elderly, so a 100 year old woman can have a heart transplant even though she isn't putting anything back into our society.
But I'd hate to ever have to pay for being ill, we have that option with private health care, which has most things a thousand times better than the NHS.
Both sides have benefits and drawbacks.
Hey, I'm not saying that universal health care isn't a noble idea, it's very nice to think of a world where anyone can get sick and then immediately get the help they need for free. It's very utopian.
But it's hard for me to put health on a level above any other commodity.
If you get injured/slain when you get into a side collision in your car and you didn't bother to pay for side airbags, whose fault is it (other than the dude who hit you)? Is it the car company's fault for not giving you the side airbags for free?
If you burn your lap with hot coffee you're enjoying at home, and can't go to work the next day, is that the coffee manufacturer's fault for not including a free lap protection pad?
If you have unprotected sex with a bunch of people and contract HIV, is the insurance company to blame when you need painkillers and can't afford them because you never took the measures to get insurance?
Sure, some cases are lamentable, like unavoidable cancer. But there will be those cases in either situation.
Let's say we tax the living shit out of everyone so they have universal healthcare. Now homeless joe has a way to treat his gout, but what about your Aunt Gertie who can no longer afford her house and is now homeless too?
But it's hard for me to put health on a level above any other commodity.
If you get injured/slain when you get into a side collision in your car and you didn't bother to pay for side airbags, whose fault is it (other than the dude who hit you)? Is it the car company's fault for not giving you the side airbags for free?
If you burn your lap with hot coffee you're enjoying at home, and can't go to work the next day, is that the coffee manufacturer's fault for not including a free lap protection pad?
If you have unprotected sex with a bunch of people and contract HIV, is the insurance company to blame when you need painkillers and can't afford them because you never took the measures to get insurance?
Sure, some cases are lamentable, like unavoidable cancer. But there will be those cases in either situation.
Let's say we tax the living shit out of everyone so they have universal healthcare. Now homeless joe has a way to treat his gout, but what about your Aunt Gertie who can no longer afford her house and is now homeless too?
I have to agree with Ven too, and on the fundamental level it's nice to believe that everything should be peachy, we should all be on a level playing field. But life isn't fair.
I think we should definitely have things like orphanages and poor houses. We should make it so that people who are at a disadvantage can get to a point where they can stand on their own, but that's about where government assistance should end. Any more and people will take advantage of the system.
Maybe you're a nice kid who could benefit from UHK, but there's four or five more people who will take advantage of it. And we all suffer a little more because of that. People should be motivated to make the world better, not making the government make the world better. It's true, most people have become too lazy and come to expect handouts as a human right.
I know my point is off-topic a bit, but it's at the heart of the matter really. UHK is a nice idea, but in practice it just doesn't work. That's the problem I have with liberals, this idea that the world is good and people play by the rules. When in fact even the most saintly humanitarian might commit a crime if given a chance.
I think we should definitely have things like orphanages and poor houses. We should make it so that people who are at a disadvantage can get to a point where they can stand on their own, but that's about where government assistance should end. Any more and people will take advantage of the system.
Maybe you're a nice kid who could benefit from UHK, but there's four or five more people who will take advantage of it. And we all suffer a little more because of that. People should be motivated to make the world better, not making the government make the world better. It's true, most people have become too lazy and come to expect handouts as a human right.
I know my point is off-topic a bit, but it's at the heart of the matter really. UHK is a nice idea, but in practice it just doesn't work. That's the problem I have with liberals, this idea that the world is good and people play by the rules. When in fact even the most saintly humanitarian might commit a crime if given a chance.
Welfare is the perfect example of this.
You're down on your luck and can't find a job but must support your family. So Welfare gives you a stipend equal to roughly the same as a regular minimum wage job, increasing per dependent. (Instead of actually GIVING you a job, like they do in northern European countries like Holland).
They also give you breaks on federally-subsidized housing, so you can afford to live. Sweet ass.
So now you're living and not working, making barely enough TO live. But if you're comfortable with that, why not just make some more dependents and make even more and continue not to work?
But what if you want a better life?
Well, let's say you're able to land a part time minimum wage job with a chance at full time later on down the road. The second you do, Welfare stops. But your PT minimum wage job isn't enough to cover your expenses. So you're forced to quit, and restart Welfare.
So, why work hard to get less than what you were given for doing nothing? What's the present-terms incentive? Your family's got to live, right? What're they going to do while you're waiting for that promotion?
You would be appalled to know how much this happens.
And that's why Welfare is a bad system.
UHC would be the same thing.
People could live off Welfare and get free medical care, awesome!
Why work?
Why contribute to the deficit when all your shit is handed to you on a silver platter?
There's no real reason.
You're down on your luck and can't find a job but must support your family. So Welfare gives you a stipend equal to roughly the same as a regular minimum wage job, increasing per dependent. (Instead of actually GIVING you a job, like they do in northern European countries like Holland).
They also give you breaks on federally-subsidized housing, so you can afford to live. Sweet ass.
So now you're living and not working, making barely enough TO live. But if you're comfortable with that, why not just make some more dependents and make even more and continue not to work?
But what if you want a better life?
Well, let's say you're able to land a part time minimum wage job with a chance at full time later on down the road. The second you do, Welfare stops. But your PT minimum wage job isn't enough to cover your expenses. So you're forced to quit, and restart Welfare.
So, why work hard to get less than what you were given for doing nothing? What's the present-terms incentive? Your family's got to live, right? What're they going to do while you're waiting for that promotion?
You would be appalled to know how much this happens.
And that's why Welfare is a bad system.
UHC would be the same thing.
People could live off Welfare and get free medical care, awesome!
Why work?
Why contribute to the deficit when all your shit is handed to you on a silver platter?
There's no real reason.
Ahhh... a Hobbes philosophy "People are born innately wicked [without government]"
I understand your view point on this but did you know that nearly 20 THOUSAND people in America die because they simply can't afford health insurance? And sure there will be people out there to take advantage but does that mean you take it away from everyone?
Vennny (and those who also agree), could you, if you may, watch the movie sicko sometime and talk to me about some of those facts, I mean I know I'm naive and I find this argument very intriguing. So if you could go against some of these perhaps?
Sorry to be a burden I just find this very interesting and I wish to hear so defence for the Americans from the points in this movie.
I understand your view point on this but did you know that nearly 20 THOUSAND people in America die because they simply can't afford health insurance? And sure there will be people out there to take advantage but does that mean you take it away from everyone?
Vennny (and those who also agree), could you, if you may, watch the movie sicko sometime and talk to me about some of those facts, I mean I know I'm naive and I find this argument very intriguing. So if you could go against some of these perhaps?
Sorry to be a burden I just find this very interesting and I wish to hear so defence for the Americans from the points in this movie.
Xaixis":37k4a9lu said:
Did you know that 400 thousand die every year because their stupid asses can't stop smoking cigarettes?
Did you know that about 20 thousand people die every year because they got behind the wheel, inebriated?
Did you know that about 17 thousand people die every year from being murdered by someone?
Did you know that 652,000 people died in 2005 of heart disease who COULD afford health care?
Statistics say what?
BALLS.
The fact of the matter is, yes, bad shit happens when people are excluded on shit like medical care. I'm not arguing that. What I AM arguing is that it shouldn't fall on the government (read: YOU--trust me, the president and congressmen aren't going to be paying out of pocket) to bail people out. It is not a good idea to pay into a system that will ultimately ruin people financially and become bloated, slow, and unwieldy (like Welfare).
I have watched Sicko. I've watched all of Moore's pandering movies. They blatently skew facts, leave good facts out, and make shit up. Sometimes he presents a good point. But in Sicko, it was mostly just, "lol even cuba cares about their people lol amerka sucks lol"
Sicko contained more statistical accuracies than its predecessors but there is a large flaw.
In Sicko's case, Moore used Cuba as a basis of comparison statistically.
The problem? All these facts are provided by the Cuban Government.
Who skews facts to make themselves look better.
He used a country filled with people so intent on getting out of it, they make dinghys out of rubber and float to Florida.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
He also failed to mention the deficit we're already in, and the FAR GREATER deficit we'd experience, should we enact such a massive plan.
And didn't you read anything I wrote about how broken the government is and how you shouldn't give them money so they can become even more broken??
How about, instead of paying taxes, we SAVE the money for health costs, should we ever have a problem?!
But no, people can't be responsible. They have to suck the teat of the powerful.
Dissonance
Member
Venetia uh, there's a big problem here.
Their own stupidity. They deserve every bit of that death.
Again, their own stupidity. Maybe the person they hit doesn't deserve it, but if we're talking about people who kill themselves due to their own drunkenness, I don't see a problem here.
This is good or bad depending on the circumstances. Sometimes people deserve to die and sometimes they don't.
99% of these people are fat retards who suck down the deep fried mcdonalds pig shit every day and think OHOHOHO I PAY FOR HEALTH CARE SO I AM INVINCIBLE. They also deserve death.
Most likely NOT their fault as they are poor fuckers.
There's a difference here - most of the people you mentioned all deserved death and had they somehow miraculously survived I would feel no remorse to go and slaughter them myself. Many times, when people are just too poor and oh shit something goes wrong medically, it's just not their fault.
In the end, you can say what you want about the flaws of the Canadian system and how high our taxes are, but goddamn we are leaps and bounds ahead of the USA. I would take having to wait a couple of extra hours at the doctor's office up here than not being able to go to the hospital at all down there, that's for sure.
Their own stupidity. They deserve every bit of that death.
Again, their own stupidity. Maybe the person they hit doesn't deserve it, but if we're talking about people who kill themselves due to their own drunkenness, I don't see a problem here.
This is good or bad depending on the circumstances. Sometimes people deserve to die and sometimes they don't.
99% of these people are fat retards who suck down the deep fried mcdonalds pig shit every day and think OHOHOHO I PAY FOR HEALTH CARE SO I AM INVINCIBLE. They also deserve death.
Most likely NOT their fault as they are poor fuckers.
There's a difference here - most of the people you mentioned all deserved death and had they somehow miraculously survived I would feel no remorse to go and slaughter them myself. Many times, when people are just too poor and oh shit something goes wrong medically, it's just not their fault.
In the end, you can say what you want about the flaws of the Canadian system and how high our taxes are, but goddamn we are leaps and bounds ahead of the USA. I would take having to wait a couple of extra hours at the doctor's office up here than not being able to go to the hospital at all down there, that's for sure.
Venetia":260wejsf said:
Population of Canada: 33,390,141
Population of Britain: 60,776,238
Population of Cuba: 11,394,043
Population of America: 301,139,947
People aren't understanding how fucking expensive such an endeavor would be!
It would QUITE LITERALLY PUT PEOPLE--middle class people! not just the lower class!-- IN THE POORHOUSE. It would be just as expensive, if not MORE expensive, than buying their own plans they can customize. Especially for hardworking people like ME who get their benefits through the company they work for.
(and in most states, it is REQUIRED for an employer to provide a reduced-cost medical plan when their establishment reaches a certain number of employees, usually about 10).
Health care needs reform, yes. But not that extreme. It would kill us. Thus my ideas for reforming costs on the SUPPLY side.
Actually what you're missing is that, with larger populations, you have larger pools of people who either will be taxed LESS or not taxed at all (i.e. they don't work or are in a tax-free deal).
And when it comes down to the fact that our government is a gigantic bloated mess, I would definitely give a big fat thumbs-down to handing them more money to just fuck up, and get bigger, fatter, and more bloated with.
And when it comes down to the fact that our government is a gigantic bloated mess, I would definitely give a big fat thumbs-down to handing them more money to just fuck up, and get bigger, fatter, and more bloated with.
Dissonance":1jrlsd9v said:
I think Ven's point was made when she wrote ,
I would rather work and get taxed less to be able to afford to go to the doctor's than be taxed more and have to go to the shitty doctor. Not to mention health insurance isn't all that expensive. I do freelance art in America and I'm still able to pay for health insurance <_<;;.
I'd be all for UHI so long as I had a choice to pay extra on taxes for it, or pay for private insurance and get no deductions from my check.
This, of course, is in the theoretical magical future where we can actually implement such a plan. Remember, only the democrats would vote on such a bill, and they like taxing the people who don't need the service for people who do need it. So I'll be taxed anyway, and as Ven said, I'd be better off getting welfare and UHI. Hell, I could stay at home and work on RMVX all fucking day.
Socialised medicine is a horrible idea. While Canada seems to have done a good job with it, most countries with it have hospitals considerably less efficient than the American standard. What is a good idea, the one Obama is pushing, is universal health insurance[/] that everyone is eligible for. Medicare/Medicaid is only useful for the very old and the very young, anyone else has great difficulty making use of it, even if they are technically eligible.
Whiskey Dick
Member
Hubert Humphrey":1783y2wu said:
Dick, I think you're a pretentious lout the way you pad your arguments ever so slightly with so much straw, bound with overtly florid wording. Your words fall to naught but hollow stone, as hollow as your sentiments. Never had I claimed allegiance to the republicans and yet you throw me to their lot without nary a second thought. Not only this, but you mistake yourself, running the assumptions that republicans sup freely at the pro-war table.
Only a fool makes such assumptions, no?
But enough talk, have at you!
Health is a right and not a privilege. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right, and you'd do well to not assimilate the two. Good healthcare does not keep health in good company, but this is beside the point. As stated, UHC is a pretty idea, and we can all enjoy it sitting on a wall in a museum somewhere, taking in it's joyful disposition, but finding a place for it among the law of the land is a fool's errand.
True, it is a good and kindly thing to extend help unto those most unfortunate, but would you force your fellow man at the sting of the tax to do such a thing? Is it more noble to force those with privilege to give where you deem fit, than to let them do it for themselves? Are you more noble to give to the proletariat with that earned by others? You seem to fault we libertarians with the notion that we are greedy misers, hoarding our wealth away from the unfortunate, but that is not the case but for the few among us. Mayhap you should wait and learn more before slinging your ill-gained disposition like barbs from a frumious bandersnatch? Perhaps invoking the sage words of our ilk may honey your ears to our philosophy?
The question: "should we give unto the poor and unfortunate, so we might better ourselves as a country?" Answer: yes, of course. "Should we force where we give the money, or choose amongst ourselves?" The answer should be yes, but unfortunately it is not. Is not the gift of giving better served when you do the giving? Why play Secret Santa, when donning the red and white robes and giving directly and with purpose is more fulfilling? And should we trust your judgment of where the money flows more than our own? Our collective own more powerful, wise and intelligent than and quarter of men could be?
I will not mire myself in your numbers game, as numbers have a way of appropriating themselves in odd ways on the interbutts. Nevertheless, you seem fit and knowledgeable to know what everyone needs and wants with such talk as "The re-election of George W. Bush (or any other Republican for that matter), is proof that the masses are ignorant of what will benefit them and what will hurt them." Shower unto me, oh swami, just how you're more fit of a person than all of us? Tell us, just how you know what we need and what we don't need. Tell us, of how you became a god, kind ser?
I find it odd, ser God, that such a man as you, presumably a liberal in your manner of speech about conservatives, that you make comment of Lincoln. You paint a picture wherein those who enact slavery ally themselves with greed and villainy, yet they were of your own preferred party, where they not? If memory serves Lincoln whore red... Though, I am only mortal kin, and not godly.
Nevertheless I have found myself at the end of your sweet and ribald statements. You talk expensively enough, and yet you assume to much. You lose yourself ser, in your own ignorant predictions. Do not aim your nonsense at party lines, but philosophy. And next time do a better job at setting up realistic criticism, instead of creating false shadows for you to attack.
Ever so miserly yours,
Sir Ixis Von Sixenth
Scribed the Fourth of Octobre, year of our Lord Two-thousand and Eight.
Only a fool makes such assumptions, no?
But enough talk, have at you!
Health is a right and not a privilege. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right, and you'd do well to not assimilate the two. Good healthcare does not keep health in good company, but this is beside the point. As stated, UHC is a pretty idea, and we can all enjoy it sitting on a wall in a museum somewhere, taking in it's joyful disposition, but finding a place for it among the law of the land is a fool's errand.
True, it is a good and kindly thing to extend help unto those most unfortunate, but would you force your fellow man at the sting of the tax to do such a thing? Is it more noble to force those with privilege to give where you deem fit, than to let them do it for themselves? Are you more noble to give to the proletariat with that earned by others? You seem to fault we libertarians with the notion that we are greedy misers, hoarding our wealth away from the unfortunate, but that is not the case but for the few among us. Mayhap you should wait and learn more before slinging your ill-gained disposition like barbs from a frumious bandersnatch? Perhaps invoking the sage words of our ilk may honey your ears to our philosophy?
The question: "should we give unto the poor and unfortunate, so we might better ourselves as a country?" Answer: yes, of course. "Should we force where we give the money, or choose amongst ourselves?" The answer should be yes, but unfortunately it is not. Is not the gift of giving better served when you do the giving? Why play Secret Santa, when donning the red and white robes and giving directly and with purpose is more fulfilling? And should we trust your judgment of where the money flows more than our own? Our collective own more powerful, wise and intelligent than and quarter of men could be?
I will not mire myself in your numbers game, as numbers have a way of appropriating themselves in odd ways on the interbutts. Nevertheless, you seem fit and knowledgeable to know what everyone needs and wants with such talk as "The re-election of George W. Bush (or any other Republican for that matter), is proof that the masses are ignorant of what will benefit them and what will hurt them." Shower unto me, oh swami, just how you're more fit of a person than all of us? Tell us, just how you know what we need and what we don't need. Tell us, of how you became a god, kind ser?
I find it odd, ser God, that such a man as you, presumably a liberal in your manner of speech about conservatives, that you make comment of Lincoln. You paint a picture wherein those who enact slavery ally themselves with greed and villainy, yet they were of your own preferred party, where they not? If memory serves Lincoln whore red... Though, I am only mortal kin, and not godly.
Nevertheless I have found myself at the end of your sweet and ribald statements. You talk expensively enough, and yet you assume to much. You lose yourself ser, in your own ignorant predictions. Do not aim your nonsense at party lines, but philosophy. And next time do a better job at setting up realistic criticism, instead of creating false shadows for you to attack.
Ever so miserly yours,
Sir Ixis Von Sixenth
Scribed the Fourth of Octobre, year of our Lord Two-thousand and Eight.