Universal Health Care

Post Reply New Topic

And? Trump may be an as*hole but he knows what hes' talking about. Plus any idiot with a basic grasp of how the world works realizes that this plan makes no sense.



I'm pretty sure I was pretty damn clear I'm talking about people who are pretty much nonfunctional.

That is open to interpretation.

1. You obviously don't know to much about America's current economic state kiddo because we really can't afford it. We are on the brink of a second great depression because of the past 12 years of 2 terrible presidents.

2. >Implying I support Government programs in the first place

3. And if people want it then they should get it, if people don't want it then they shouldn't have to get it, and if people can't afford to get it then it's their own damn fault. It's not a necessity. The Government shouldn't have to catch everybody when they fall and clean up their mistakes, grown adults are adults, not babies.

4. And what necessarily is wrong with Scrooges views? Fiscally Conservative ideologies while they don't benefit the lazy stupid bottom-feeders does benefit everybody else and has been proven to be a successful way of running a country.

5. Well I believe it was pretty obvious that poster was implying Aspergers

6. If they can't contribute they shouldn't be here.

kiddo? You are not even older than him to devolve to having to use that insult

Talking about mental/emotional maturity. If somebody thinks that the Government should pay for a life of laziness and mooching even if it's not your own life (well especially if it's not your own) then they aren't very mature.

...

Last edited by SpiritBlooms on 09 Jul 2012, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are on the brink because you have a Congress that is too cowardly to raise the taxes necessary to pay for the level of government that your citizens demand--and that has been allowed to get away with it for 40 years because whenever the chips are down, people run to the dollar for cover.

I have a feeling that I know a hell of a lot more than you about your country's current economic state. If you want to have a discussion about US fiscal and monetary policy, let's have at it.



Well, since you suggest that another posters view of politics and economics was "uncivilized" it's pretty clear that you support the notion of civilization. And if you support civilization, then you must ipso facto support government of some kind, because the former cannot exist without the latter. It never has, and it never will.



You might believe that it's not a necessity, but the overwhelming evidence is against you on this. There does not exist a single civilized nation on earth in which health care is not a fundamental area of government responsibility. There are plenty of methods of providing access, to be sure. And what works in one country might not be a good fit for another country. But no civilized nation can function to its full potential in the absence of comprehensive access to medically necessary care.



A fair question.

Keeping the "bottom feeders" benefits us directly in two very important ways:

First, not doing so is the short road to economic stagnation. Economic growth can come from two--and only two--sources: innovation, and population growth. Innovation lets us proverbially, "do more with less," creating greater economic output with the same level of inputs. But innovation is only half the picture. When your economy expands through the establishment of new producers, those producers need workers and they need customers.

If we got rid of all the "bottom feeders" in the current economic climate, then where would the available workers be for the next round of economic expansion? In an environment where the surplus population is killed off, you then create a seller's market in labour, where supply exceeds demand, and sends the cost of production through the roof--creating the conditions for inflation, and the resulting contraction of the economy in real terms.

Second, the link between crime (particularly violent crime) and poverty is well established. When government fails to take steps to mitigate poverty, government knowingly increases crime. My house is protected from break-in and theft, in part, because my government takes steps to ensure that people in my province don't need to steal to eat. And when my government fails to do that (as they have been doing for the last decade), the result is an increase in property crime, putting me at greater risk of break-in and theft--and imposing higher insurance premiums on me as a result.



Again, your beliefs are getting in the way of you saying anything intelligent.



Define contribute.

Does a stay-at-home parent contribute? Any economist will tell you that such a person absolutely does. But that person earns no money for that contribution, and does not have access to care except though the benificence of a working parent's insurer. And, of course, in the absence of government regulation, the employer and the insurer have absolutely no interest in insuring workers' dependents.

Your thinking is so clearly limited to the immediate transaction. In the vernacular, you cannot see the forest for the trees. Until you can start to think about how transactions are interrelated and how they aggregate to form an economy, your thinking will always be limited.

Last edited by visagrunt on 05 Jul 2012, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What if the government is unjust and tyranical? Should we support it for fight it?

The U.S. government runs in contradiction to its own Constitution. So if it is not unjust, then it is constitutionally illegal. For example Justice Roberts declared the mandate in the ACA a tax. But it originated in the Senate and the U.S. Constitution Art I , Sec 7 says all revenue raising bills (fees, taxes, fines etc) must originate in the House.

You see what I mean?

The U.S Constitution lies on the ground severely wounded and bleeding if not already dead. If the Constitution is dead then what is the warrant for our current government?

ruveyn

No so fast, smart guy. The Senate took up HR 3590, and amended it. This has been accepted as a perfectly legitimate use of the Senate's power to propose or concur with amendments that appears in the same Article I, Section 7.

But your original question is still a fair question. My response would be that so long as you are provided with the peaceful means to contrain government, you have no justification for "fighting" it--in the sense of taking up arms against it.

If you can assemble sufficient numbers of the body politic to enforce change, then by all means do so. Start demanding better of those whom you elect, for a start. But do not pretend that government has become tyranny simply because your electorate has become too lazy to hold them to account at the polling station. The fault lies with voters, there.

I support the single payer healthcare opition. But Xenu your statements just make me sad. That their are people in this world that agree with.

Donald Trump.