US Healthcare reform

Page 14 of 20 [ 305 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

14 Aug 2009, 6:57 am

ed wrote:

BUT NOBODY IS SUGGESTING NATIONAL HEALTH CARE! THIS BILL IS ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE! PERIOD!

IF OBAMA EVER COMES OUT WITH A PROPOSAL FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE, THEN SCREAM ALL YOU WANT. THIS IS ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE.

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND??? :scratch:

Why is it so hard for YOU to understand that government seizes power and dominance over your freedoms by baby steps and not grand invasions? If we allow these "improvements" to "national health care" to happen, it will be the first (and a fairly large) step towards national health care. The proponents for national health care suggested that steps like this is how it would have to be imposed here in the USA, and that's what is happening.

When someone is telegraphing a punch and you don't block it, whose fault is it if you get smacked on the jaw?

If we wait until the barbarians are at the gate to start marshaling our defenses, it's already too late.

You are great at debating details, but you do not seem to grasp strategy.

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

14 Aug 2009, 7:04 am

zer0netgain wrote:

ed wrote:

Are you with Ruveyn? By that I mean "Do you think that poor people should be allowed to die rather than save them with government (tax) money?"

_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Aug 2009, 7:57 am

ed wrote:

Look, as you've said before, your objection to this bill is that you think that poor people should be allowed to die instead of spending government money to cure them. While that viewpoint disgusts me, it IS a valid point-of-view. If you want to fight this bill, you should do so on that basis. What you are doing is intellectually dishonest.

My objection to the bill is that it puts the government in a business it has no business being in. The surest way to screw something up miserably is to have the government run it or supervise it.

Except for handling contagious diseases or conditions the government has no place in the delivery of health care.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Aug 2009, 8:14 am

ruveyn wrote:

ed wrote:

Considering the major, major, major screw-up of the current financial system and the American automobile business private business is no wonder either. Where does that leave us?

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

14 Aug 2009, 8:30 am

ruveyn wrote:

Taxing those who have something to tax for the sake of those who have little or nothing to tax. It is theft. If a private person did that he would be sent to prison. If the government does it, it is called compassion.

Let those without the means beg for crumbs and let their betters help them voluntarily or let them die.

ruveyn

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Aug 2009, 9:18 am

Sand wrote:

Considering the major, major, major screw-up of the current financial system and the American automobile business private business is no wonder either. Where does that leave us?

In the usual lurch. People are imperfect.

Flaws and all, private business has produced most of the things that make our lives easier, healthier and longer.

Thomas Edison and Charles Swan (English) did not need the government to invent the light bulb. Marconi did not need the government to develop a wireless telegraph. Edward Land did not need the government to invent instant photography. Salk and Sabin developed polio vaccines primarily with private funding. Orville and Wilbur Wright developed their flying machine with money from their own pocket: $1200. Samuel Langley, funded by Congress to the tune of $50,000 (in 1900) produced nothing but failures.

And so on and so on and so on.

Bottom line: Government sucks lemons and excretes brown and smelly effluvia.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Aug 2009, 9:43 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

Considering the major, major, major screw-up of the current financial system and the American automobile business private business is no wonder either. Where does that leave us?

In the usual lurch. People are imperfect.

Flaws and all, private business has produced most of the things that make our lives easier, healthier and longer.

Thomas Edison and Charles Swan (English) did not need the government to invent the light bulb. Marconi did not need the government to develop a wireless telegraph. Edward Land did not need the government to invent instant photography. Salk and Sabin developed polio vaccines primarily with private funding. Orville and Wilbur Wright developed their flying machine with money from their own pocket: $1200. Samuel Langley, funded by Congress to the tune of $50,000 (in 1900) produced nothing but failures. (And that, of course, includes NASA)

And so on and so on and so on.

Bottom line: Government sucks lemons and excretes brown and smelly effluvia.

ruveyn

And therefore you advocate all federal funding for basic research be dropped as its contribution is negligible.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Aug 2009, 9:59 am

Sand wrote:

And therefore you advocate all federal funding for basic research be dropped as its contribution is negligible.

Since the money originates from private pockets, basic research can be funded privately. There is no constitutional authorization (U.S. Constitution) for government funding of basic research. The government is allowed by the Constitution to pursue weapons development.

I am all in favor of basic research (which prior to WW2 was funded from university endowments). What I oppose is theft committed upon the tax-payer. If someone wants to fund basic research he should contribute to it out of his own pocket. I do.

ruveyn

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

14 Aug 2009, 10:00 am

By the way ruveyn, do you have Medicare?

Last edited by ed on 14 Aug 2009, 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Aug 2009, 10:02 am

ed wrote:

By the way Ruveyn, do you have Medicare?

Yup. It is the only way I can recover funds that was stolen from me to put into social security. You bet I do. I want to get back as much as I can.

My monthly premium is taken out of my social security stipend.

ruveyn

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

14 Aug 2009, 10:06 am

ruveyn wrote:

ed wrote:

By the way Ruveyn, do you have Medicare?

...then the government is your insurance company, just as is being suggested in the bill.

Medicare is considered socialized medicine.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Aug 2009, 10:35 am

ed wrote:

...then the government is your insurance company, just as is being suggested in the bill.

Medicare is considered socialized medicine.

It is also the only legal way I have to recovered stolen money. That is the way it is. If the government stayed out of it in the first place, I and everyone else could be insuring ourselves from our own money.

My alternative would be not to be in medicare in which case I am completely out the money that was stolen from me. I would be a double victim. No thank you.

ruveyn

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

14 Aug 2009, 10:52 am

ruveyn wrote:

ed wrote:

...then the government is your insurance company, just as is being suggested in the bill.

Medicare is considered socialized medicine.

How is the government doing as your insurance company? Is its performance satisfactory to you?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Aug 2009, 10:55 am

Ruveyn, since you consider all taxes stolen money then you consider the agreement of all citizens to pay taxes to support the government they have as a null agreement and the government, under your concept has no right to collect them. That looks to me that you qualify as a screwball.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Aug 2009, 11:43 am

Sand wrote:

I consider the money collected for police, law courts and the armed forces not stolen. It is a shame to lay on a tax to these ends but that seems to be the only way to fund them. Anything that can be supplied in small lots to individuals by private individuals or firms should be so supplied. That is how we get our food, for example. We go to privately owned stores which get their goods through privately owned distribution centers, which get their material from privately owned farms or other food sources. This is how we eat.

If our food can be privately produced and distributed, why not our medical care? Food is even more vital to our lives than medical care. We rely on private sources for that, why not medical care?

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Aug 2009, 11:58 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

But aviation, atomic energy, space, satellites, rocketry and huge amounts of basic medical research are all basically incubated by government support. That is why you are such a puzzle to me since you are pretty totally technologically oriented.

Page 14 of 20 [ 305 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20 Next

Jump to:

US Healthcare reform Post Reply New Topic

US Healthcare reform