Social Security used to be an option too, until it was forced on the people. I think that is part of the concern.
We need to analyze why prices are rising.
prices rise because people wants to get paid.
in norway for example, food prices over the last 10 years has increased by almost 40%.
politicians in norway tried to combat high food prices by reducing the tax on food.
instead, the prices stayed the same, and the food chains pocketed the extra money from the reduced sales tax.
people will always buy food first, which means they must spend less money on fun things.
maybe they go less to restaurants,movies, or buy cheaper TVs and computers.
then the restaurant owners increase prices, to "adjust" for the lower income, and the same do movie theaters, and the TV and computer salesmen.
it was housing that was one of the primary reasons the US economy got as broken as it is today.
everyone buys a house eventually. but the banks were not securing the loans they made to people, so anyone could borrow millions, and buy themselves the mansion they could never afford. So people did, and never paid the banks back, so the banks ended up with big holes in their pockets.
then the bankers got a "really smart idea". they started selling these loans to other banks, and it turned out to be a very profitable business.
they also started advertising that everyone could get a huge loan and buy the mansion they always dreamed about. the banks would then take the loan and sell it.
and thats what people on wall street do for a living.
-- seriously, who here doesn't actually want a government subsidized, free health care system? fucking retarded people are being lied to.
Why does everyone think it will be free? That's why they protest, they don't want to pay/be taxed for shit they wont use. And besides, when the government starts to get involved, it will just get worse. Paying for something worse sounds great, doesn't it?!
Why does everyone think it will be free? That's why they protest, they don't want to pay/be taxed for shit they wont use. And besides, when the government starts to get involved, it will just get worse. Paying for something worse sounds great, doesn't it?!
We pay taxes for our Police and Fire departments, even though you hope you never will have to use them, it sure is nice knowing that they are available just in case you do.
Even if my taxes go up to support it, it's a small price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing that, God forbid, I ever find myself out of a job and without health care, my family will have health care available to them if one of us happens to get sick.
I want the government involved as much as possible in shit like this. Deregulating the already greedy and corrupt health care system is the WORST thing that could possibly happen.
Why does everyone think it will be free? That's why they protest, they don't want to pay/be taxed for shit they wont use. And besides, when the government starts to get involved, it will just get worse. Paying for something worse sounds great, doesn't it?!
1. this bullshit about the government being worse than private industry is about as ridiculous of a myth as there is. government run industries don't turn even close to a high profit as privately run companies, but are usually not psychopathic in their behavior. in fact, those two things are *somewhat* related.
2. -- "i don't wanna pay for things i don't use!" -- tough luck. people that bitch about not wanting to pay for education, for example, because they don't have kids, are criminally unwise and they need to mature. at a certain point we need to hold people to a higher standard.
if you're in this culture and you bitch and wine about not wanting to be part of it, that's insane. The concept that you can live separate from some sort of social structure is a total fucking illusion. your identity is a goddamn social construct. there's nothing independent about you.
people who don't give a shit about others and who are worried about being dragged down by having to support social programs like FUCKING HEALTH CARE can suck a dick. that's not moral, and i'm not goign to pretend that it is. it's narcissistic. ASIDE from the fact that it's less developed to use your separate self sense as the only reference point when making a decision (extremely so), it IS beneficial to your separate self that the community that you live in flourishes and it's people are healthy.
Why does everyone think it will be free? That's why they protest, they don't want to pay/be taxed for shit they wont use. And besides, when the government starts to get involved, it will just get worse. Paying for something worse sounds great, doesn't it?!
of course it's not quote "free" but what is cheaper, having 10-20% in your taxes for healthcare or paying 50% of your paycheck to a insurance company? by the way insurance companies don't actually give you healthcare, they make money off the transaction and tell you what you can and cannot do.
1. this bullshit about the government being worse than private industry is about as ridiculous of a myth as there is. government run industries don't turn even close to a high profit as privately run companies, but are usually not psychopathic in their behavior. in fact, those two things are *somewhat* related.
2. -- "i don't wanna pay for things i don't use!" -- tough luck. people that bitch about not wanting to pay for education, for example, because they don't have kids, are criminally unwise and they need to mature. at a certain point we need to hold people to a higher standard.
if you're in this culture and you bitch and wine about not wanting to be part of it, that's insane. The concept that you can live separate from some sort of social structure is a total fucking illusion. your identity is a goddamn social construct. there's nothing independent about you.
people who don't give a shit about others and who are worried about being dragged down by having to support social programs like FUCKING HEALTH CARE can suck a dick. that's not moral, and i'm not goign to pretend that it is. it's narcissistic. ASIDE from the fact that it's less developed to use your separate self sense as the only reference point when making a decision (extremely so), it IS beneficial to your separate self that the community that you live in flourishes and it's people are healthy.
hold on there John, take it easy. Let's keep it as civil as possible.
Can't help but think things wont change though, they never do, not till someone figures out how to enact real change in these self destructive masses. But oh well, things aren't that bad, when you think about it things are still pretty good. Life goes on, just keep the boob tube off fox news and your blood pressure will stay down. There's some free medicine for ya.
1. this bullshit about the government being worse than private industry is about as ridiculous of a myth as there is.
You really should watch some John Stossel on youtube. This is factually incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Government doesn't have any incentive to improve its services because it has nothing to compete with. Free market competition is always better for the consumer.
2. -- "i don't wanna pay for things i don't use!" -- tough luck. people that bitch about not wanting to pay for education, for example, because they don't have kids, are criminally unwise and they need to mature. at a certain point we need to hold people to a higher standard.
So I guess the next time you are in a room with 3 other people and you have a $20 dollar bill in your pocket you should give $5 to each of them otherwise it would be hypocritical not to do so.
if you're in this culture and you bitch and wine about not wanting to be part of it, that's insane. The concept that you can live separate from some sort of social structure is a total fucking illusion. your identity is a goddamn social construct. there's nothing independent about you.
The sad part is you are correct. Man used to be free and independent and the founders envisioned America to be that way at one time. Not any more.
This is really hard to argue. You have a different mindset than I do. Don't be offended but what you advocate for is socialism. It is the taking of something from someone to give to someone else by force. The IRS coming and taking your house at gun point because you don't pay your taxes is the very opposite of a society that prides itself on freedom.
people who don't give a shit about others and who are worried about being dragged down by having to support social programs like FUCKING HEALTH CARE can suck a dick. that's not moral, and i'm not goign to pretend that it is. it's narcissistic. ASIDE from the fact that it's less developed to use your separate self sense as the only reference point when making a decision (extremely so), it IS beneficial to your separate self that the community that you live in flourishes and it's people are healthy.
You will eat these words some day. The hidden little secret about the national debt is that is was never designed to be paid back. It is merely a figure of how much currency is in the system. Every year that the national debt grows bigger is a devaluation hit on your own purchasing power. Money you've saved becomes worth less and less because the law of supply and demand dictates the more of something means less demand for it. In terms of dollars it requires more of them to purchase the same things you did before. Inflation essentially.
I care about people a great deal. Inflation is the primary factor in what keeps the poor and middle class down. People can never get ahead. The republicans and democrats both do not understand this (or they do not care) and that is very sad.
Many here despise capitalism I suspect. People need to recognize if we had true free market capitalism we wouldn't be having many of the problems we have today. Corporatism is the culprit. People need to research this more.
"Government doesn't have any incentive to improve its services because it has nothing to compete with. Free market competition is always better for the consumer."
Law makers have to compete with other law makers.
"So I guess the next time you are in a room with 3 other people and you have a $20 dollar bill in your pocket you should give $5 to each of them otherwise it would be hypocritical not to do so."
WTF? Seriously, that comment just ruined my will to read the rest of your post. TLDR. I'll skip down to the end though.
"Many here despise capitalism I suspect. People need to recognize if we had true free market capitalism we wouldn't be having many of the problems we have today. Corporatism is the culprit. People need to research this more."
INCORRECT!
Private companies are good at things that require efficiency. The government is good at things that require redundancy, like the fire department, military, police, and health care.
Once again, think about where you will be if you lose your jobs or are no longer able to be covered under mommy and daddy's health insurance tomorrow ... or if a "pre-existing condition" manifested itself at your current job and you really don't want to spend the rest of your life there because you will need the health insurance coverage if future, related problems should choose to manifest themselves ... of course, I can see where you are coming from, obviously these huge, greedy corporations have all of your best interests at heart, right?
I've been through private, military and MedicAid health care systems. It would have been great to have awesome coverage for my wife and kids and not spend $800 a month for it when you're unemployed and it doesn't even include dental/vision.
"Government doesn't have any incentive to improve its services because it has nothing to compete with. Free market competition is always better for the consumer."
Law makers have to compete with other law makers.
The "competition" that lawmakers appear to engage in is a myth. If law makers actually cared about you, NAFTA that ships jobs to Canada and mexico would end, the wars all around the world would end and the money saved, etc. People need to stop blaming republicans all the time and realize our two party system is actually a single party. Think of the democrats and republicans as two different mafia groups. They might shoot each other once in a while but they will not disrupt their crap shoot at the top of the pyramid.
"So I guess the next time you are in a room with 3 other people and you have a $20 dollar bill in your pocket you should give $5 to each of them otherwise it would be hypocritical not to do so."
WTF? Seriously, that comment just ruined my will to read the rest of your post. TLDR. I'll skip down to the end though.
My extreme analogy with the $20 bill still applies though even if you think it sounds crazy. What John was advocating for was taking from someone to give to someone else. And that is all fine and dandy until they come knocking on your door wanting you to share the fruits of your labor.
"Many here despise capitalism I suspect. People need to recognize if we had true free market capitalism we wouldn't be having many of the problems we have today. Corporatism is the culprit. People need to research this more."
INCORRECT!
Private companies are good at things that require efficiency. The government is good at things that require redundancy, like the fire department, military, police, and health care.
It's good to see you recognize the efficiency side of the private industry. btw my beef is not with local governments. The individual states can operate however they see fit when it comes to fire, roads, police, etc. Competition between states is a great thing. I'm only referring to government on the federal level which is worthless. They've proved time and time again to be working against the will of the people.
The best way to not fear for another neocon like dubya coming along and abusing power is to strip the federal government of most of its power completely that has nothing to do with national defense.
Once again, think about where you will be if you lose your jobs or are no longer able to be covered under mommy and daddy's health insurance tomorrow ... or if a "pre-existing condition" manifested itself at your current job and you really don't want to spend the rest of your life there because you will need the health insurance coverage if future, related problems should choose to manifest themselves ... of course, I can see where you are coming from, obviously these huge, greedy corporations have all of your best interests at heart, right?
If you're concerned with lobbyists then you should take note of why the big pharma lobbyists are embracing public option with such open arms. Could it be because they love the idea of sending their bills to the government?
Again, like I said before...insurance would drop very quickly if smaller ticket items were treated like anything else you buy. Instead of prices being invisible and the medical industry charging insurance companies whatever they want to cover you. This is why health insurance is skyrocketing. Both parties do not talk about this. If they have, the MSM is not reporting it.
I've been through private, military and MedicAid health care systems. It would have been great to have awesome coverage for my wife and kids and not spend $800 a month for it when you're unemployed and it doesn't even include dental/vision.
If you served our country then the viewpoint is different. You should be taken care of since the only thing the federal government was supposed to do in the beginning is provide for national defense. Doing more for veterans is something we should do.
I personally could not afford to cover insurance for a child if I were to have one. I can only cover myself and the wife. Therefore we choose to not have a child and stick others with the bill until our economic situation takes a turn for the better.
"The "competition" that lawmakers appear to engage in is a myth. If law makers actually cared about you, NAFTA that ships jobs to Canada and mexico would end, the wars all around the world would end and the money saved, etc. People need to stop blaming republicans all the time and realize our two party system is actually a single party. Think of the democrats and republicans as two different mafia groups. They might shoot each other once in a while but they will not disrupt their crap shoot at the top of the pyramid."
You're assuming I have a problem with people in Canada and Mexico having the opportunity to work (I don't). Grow a pair and work harder. And as for war? Give me a break. Go to countries with no government and see how peaceful it is.
"My extreme analogy with the $20 bill still applies though even if you think it sounds crazy. What John was advocating for was taking from someone to give to someone else. And that is all fine and dandy until they come knocking on your door wanting you to share the fruits of your labor."
I have been working and paying taxes since I was twelve. I don't mind.
"It's good to see you recognize the efficiency side of the private industry. btw my beef is not with local governments. The individual states can operate however they see fit when it comes to fire, roads, police, etc. Competition between states is a great thing. I'm only referring to government on the federal level which is worthless. They've proved time and time again to be working against the will of the people."
hmmmm.... That's a pretty broad statement. I think the federal government is a lot better than the local government of Oklahoma. Tattoos were illegal until a few years ago, and I still can't buy beer on Sunday. In many states there was no such thing as marital rape until the 90s. And butt sex was also illegal by state laws. Not to mention Jim crow.
The thing with health insurance is that it is better for consumers the bigger the pool of money gets. So if everyone is in a pool together, there is more money for you when you get sick. That's why group insurance plans you get through your employer are better than private insurance plans. And why national health insurance programs are better than group insurance.
"If you served our country then the viewpoint is different. You should be taken care of since the only thing the federal government was supposed to do in the beginning is provide for national defense. Doing more for veterans is something we should do."
But if private insurance is so much better than why don't we just make veterans buy their own health insurance. It would be better for them right?
Not really, its because they (insurance companies) want a bigger bottom line. Look at how much money they take in, and how much they put back. The insurance companies aren't the good guys, they could care less about you.
You know it just really seems that these people look at one another and say, "I got your back". Because for a few dollars more, you can help that person by having a public option. People need help, not everybody can pay to have insurance, and even if you have insurance doesn't mean your problems will be fixed.
What I really think should happen though is a single payer system, but there is too much corporate greed in the states for that to happen. I'm really glad I'm Canadian, it may not be the best, but it works well for me.
Not really, its because they (insurance companies) want a bigger bottom line. Look at how much money they take in, and how much they put back. The insurance companies aren't the good guys, they could care less about you.
Insurance companies are great at meeting their goals. It just happens those goals are for profit not for better cheaper care.
There is nothing stopping them from locking arms together and keeping prices high. Takes the punch right out of shopping around when the prices are fixed. The supposed low balling effect could happen right now but its not.
Forcing people to shop around on big illnesses doesn't work. That's why the shop around option is always prefaced with "on the little stuff".
The saving on the little stuff will quickly be overshadowed by raising costs. The shop around method just shifts the insurance companies bills to the people. Puffing up their already bloated bottom line.
They still control costs on everything.
They turn a - on their books into a + (by passing the bill onto us).
Our costs increase.
Our plans decrease.
Costs still run wild.
How is that better for us?
Its a big bonus to them....
Who decides what is small and big ticket, government? Insurance? Me? My doc? Is that a fixed line or does it get renegotiated as times change? If costs go up does the definition of small ticket increase to cover big ticket items?
Insurance companies are scared of a public option because it would operate under a different pretense. Save money provide quality care which is very different from exact the maximum amount of profit from the system any way you can. They should be operating under first now but aren't.
Red Team: I have money, fuck you, hurry up and die. The world will be a better place once you are gone.
Blue Team: But I was on my way to making my millions... so what happens to you when you lose your money?
Red Team: That's easy your wife and kids will bail me out just like you did wall st. See, reward always flows up never down, because I'm better than you and I deserve your money. See Regan had it right with trickle down economics but he was dyslectic.
It's not lazy people sucking money off the government. It's an agreement to pick you up when you get knocked down so you can pick me up when I get knocked down. So we can all stand together.
So if I have a asthma attack I should shop around until I find a good price and then get care. Or maybe if I brake my arm I should shop around with a broken arm until I find a good price.
Let me make my point clear, insurance companies don't actually provide healthcare. They simply make money off the transaction. Even if you don't like the gov't getting involved in healthcare, you should at least be against insurance companies. why give money to a company that takes 30-50% of that money, tells you what kind of treatments you can and cannot get, and then tells doctors that maybe they'll be paid for the treatments they use.
many people in the U.S have swallowed this massive propaganda pill that suggests that somehow socialist structure leads to the removal of freedom. They distort what socialism actually is as a result of a conservative fear. Canada has many social programs and I have total choice. if i feel sick i can go to any clinic i want, and it's automatically covered. it takes like 5 seconds to sign in.
I might have to wait about 30 minutes
I don't have to go to some appointed hospital
I get help from what ever doctor is working
that doctor gets to work where ever the fuck he wants
What you're calling socialism sounds more like some sort of Stalinism.
"...$20 dollar bill in your pocket you should give $5 to each of them...."
This is the type of stuff that i'm talking about. WHY -- on EARTH, would you think that me supporting the BLIND distribution of wealth, would be in any way hypocritical of my socialist values? you clearly have no understanding of socialist democratic systems. it has nothing to do with the blind redistribution of wealth.
It has everything to do with realizing that YOUR FREEDOM is only valuable inside a social area. human beings are pack animals, and it's important for everyone who isn't a psychopath to see his neighbor thrive. that's called "love" -- and as you know, love is predicated on a healthy love of self, not self sacrifice. freedom is central to any socialist system working properly -- but we've got a problem here -- should we support one's freedom to be sociopathic and care only for himself?
NO. we fucking shouldn't:
the only solution to suffering is genuine human compassion, and that means having the desire to GIVE OF YOURSELF. this is an emotionally and spiritual evolved issue and we need some sort of structure to encourage people to mature to the point where the can operate in this way. This is the "higher standard" that i'm talking about.
YES. it's more mature to care if my neighbor thrives, and to be less concerned about taking for myself, and if we're going to move forward as a culture, we've got to stand up and fucking announce that.
now- this concept of the people in the military being somehow automatically heroes because they're serving their country, and somehow I'm NOT, is bullshit.. and it's EXACTLY the type of problem that I'm speaking to. you and your family are a part of your culture and as such, you contribute to america. your serving your country right now, but entering into a debate that will create new ideas. hopefully we'll both be lifted up. if that isn't a service to the country, i dont know what is.
now note -- even the most staunch conservative will support socialism in SOME area. it does work in the military, quite well.
but if we do away with the concept that the mlitary are the only people who are serving the country, and we decide to create a governing body that holds the people to a standard higher than egocentrism, why the hell shouldn't I get free health care? do we really WANT a culture that only supports people being ready to die for their country? is that what we really want as a standard? doesn't that seem sort of.. well.. totally fucked up?
the concept that you, you patriot, would avoid having a CHILD because you couldn't afford it.. that's.. horrific! that's horrible!
don't you feel like you live in a culture that has failed you, when you're afraid to do the most basic of all human behaviors? this is a goddamn war against fucking evolution!
bringing this thread back from the grave. Thought everyone would like to see this video where the parents of a murdered boy are billed $30K for 5 minutes in the emergency room.
But it's the free market, I guess next time their son is murdered they can go to a different hospital. Kind of like how if you don't like Sony TVs, next time you can buy a Panasonic
I wonder how much of that insurance is gonna pick up? They should have expected the bill regardless if he died or not, and it would have been more had he lived. Finally, the letter wasn't insulting, it's just how robots are.
pfft... come on dude... this kind of shit happens all the time, this guy just had the poor taste to bring it to his local news station's attention. the hospital screwed up... one simple phone call made to them could have cleared this up in a heartbeat... there was no need for him to take this to the news... the hospital is heartless! give me a break.
Forgot about this thread. That was a cute post but it was loaded with emotion instead of logic.
Let me pre-face by saying I respect you and your work John. My intent isn't to make enemies around here. (I can't really afford to...lol) A lot of you guys rock with your craft.
I just have serious reservations with the loving hand of the nanny-state many of you embrace. I have studied past cultures and governments quite well and it is impossible to put an entire case together in message board posts. I am well versed in this but it is difficult when people have been indoctrinated with an entitlement mindset completely different from my own.
many people in the U.S have swallowed this massive propaganda pill that suggests that somehow socialist structure leads to the removal of freedom. They distort what socialism actually is as a result of a conservative fear. Canada has many social programs and I have total choice. if i feel sick i can go to any clinic i want, and it's automatically covered. it takes like 5 seconds to sign in.
It has everything to do with realizing that YOUR FREEDOM is only valuable inside a social area. human beings are pack animals, and it's important for everyone who isn't a psychopath to see his neighbor thrive. that's called "love" -- and as you know, love is predicated on a healthy love of self, not self sacrifice. freedom is central to any socialist system working properly -- but we've got a problem here -- should we support one's freedom to be sociopathic and care only for himself?
NO. we fucking shouldn't:
the only solution to suffering is genuine human compassion, and that means having the desire to GIVE OF YOURSELF. this is an emotionally and spiritual evolved issue and we need some sort of structure to encourage people to mature to the point where the can operate in this way. This is the "higher standard" that i'm talking about.
YES. it's more mature to care if my neighbor thrives, and to be less concerned about taking for myself, and if we're going to move forward as a culture, we've got to stand up and fucking announce that.
now- this concept of the people in the military being somehow automatically heroes because they're serving their country, and somehow I'm NOT, is bullshit.. and it's EXACTLY the type of problem that I'm speaking to. you and your family are a part of your culture and as such, you contribute to america. your serving your country right now, but entering into a debate that will create new ideas. hopefully we'll both be lifted up. if that isn't a service to the country, i dont know what is.
now note -- even the most staunch conservative will support socialism in SOME area. it does work in the military, quite well.
but if we do away with the concept that the mlitary are the only people who are serving the country, and we decide to create a governing body that holds the people to a standard higher than egocentrism, why the hell shouldn't I get free health care? do we really WANT a culture that only supports people being ready to die for their country? is that what we really want as a standard? doesn't that seem sort of.. well.. totally fucked up?
the concept that you, you patriot, would avoid having a CHILD because you couldn't afford it.. that's.. horrific! that's horrible!
don't you feel like you live in a culture that has failed you, when you're afraid to do the most basic of all human behaviors? this is a goddamn war against fucking evolution!
The simple fact is. People have a right to keep the fruits of their own labor.
That "massive propaganda pill" you refer to has a rooted cause for concern by many. I don't mean for this to sound rude but you clearly have not studied history. I would start with the Communist Manifesto. It involves an explanation on how you slowly dismantle freedoms through various planks of gradualism. One of those planks is the creation of a central bank such as the federal reserve. If you do not understand economics and how government regulation works against you, then it is impossible for you to understand why health care costs and other things are at insane levels right now.
Another plank is akin to the corporatism that I suspect you, I, and even Michael Moore despises today and could all agree on. People really need to stop confusing capitalism with what is going in this day and age. We can agree on a lot of things. I just know many liberals come to the wrong conclusions. I am conservative but I don't vote for 98% of the republicans just to be clear because they have failed me just as equally.
Yes the system has failed me. But I don't believe the answer to solve the mess you seek is correct. You say "why shouldn't I get free health care". Aside from the fact that this sounds very "entitled", my only answer is, where does it stop? Do you think money grows on trees? Further, you need food to survive...so should we have universal grocery insurance as well?
Your comparison with the military is fair. I do not agree with policing the world as we do. I do not support the middle-east wars. Part of the reason Canada can afford health care for its' citizens is because you don't have troops in 170+ bases in 130+ countries all around the world. I respect Canada and other countries like Switzerland on this subject. Don't attack and you won't be attacked. Our national debt is a big problem in the US and until people understand how inflation works we just can't afford any more large boondoggles like health care.
That is to say I don't believe there should be no military. It just wouldn't be nearly as expensive if we only used our military for defense instead of going around the world looking for dragons to slay. Part of our problems in the middle east with why we are so hated originates with the United States CIA led coup in Iran in 1953 but this is going off into a different subject so I'll stop.
Our military should only be used as it relates to the just-war theory of christianity IMO. Only attack when you are attacked first. I disagree with the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan because they are not the problem. If you want to target a nation based on the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers then technically Saudi Arabia should've been our focus. Of course that doesn't make sense either. You can't attack an entire country based on a few thugs. That's why the "war on terrorism" is such a stupid concept. It is an invisible enemy that gives the military industrial complex a reason to keep asking for more funds to infinity.
If Americans want to know why they are so broke and wonder where their money is being pissed away to, that is your culprit. Taking from you to give to Haliburton is called "corporatism". Government giving to most industries thru deficit spending is what causes prices to rise. It's a supply and demand issue as it relates to dollars. Your money is worth less and less each year.
This is why I find it hilarious when democrats embrace the same stuff republicans get themselves involved with. Spending more and more for programs just continually makes everyone more poor. I resent the idea that because I am a fiscal conservative who wants fiscal responsibility means I don't care about the poor and middle-class who don't have health insurance.
I just view solutions from a completely different angle. It is something most people don't understand sadly thanks to all of the retarded programming the mainstream media fills our glowing boob tubes with. Nobody reads books anymore.
American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc...Everything is designed to keep people in a stupefying naive bubble so they don't do too much critical thinking on their own in regards to these subjects. So the elite can keep robbing them us blind. GE for example (who owns NBC) profits greatly in the middle east. Many executives own dividend paying stock in companies that directly benefit from this kind of corporatism.
This extends not just to the military, but to other industries. You think Al Gore really care about the planet? lol Research how carbon credits work. Ken Lay of Enron helped him devise his carbon credit scheme. Global warming paranoia...cap & trade laws...a lot of what you embrace is designed to rob you blind. Corporatism is a transfer of wealth from you to corporations using the government to do so legally.
This is a small part of the problem with rising prices. Not capitalism.
Anyway, I really digressed there...really badly and I'm sorry. lol
I have some questions for you John...
How will you institute your imaginary desire for a socialist utopia? When those who are unwilling to go along with how you think handing out free stuff should work, do you point a gun in their face?
that's called "love"
There is no love at the point of a gun.
John,
Why would any self-professed free thinker submit himself to the whims of a body collective? Socialists are always railing about their "individuality" and "creative expression", yet never contrast these concepts against their state-based solutions for humanity. Man has proven to be such an incorrigible and fallible creature throughout the ages that the dispersal and dilution of power is essential. Productive humanitarian endeavors can be accomplished through the volition of the individual, as opposed to enforcement via the barrel of a gun.
And with that...I'm spent...back to art...lol
edit: i should edit most of this out but I'm too bored with it now...
I really enjoyed his religulous documentary, but iv gotta say Bill Maher seemed like a big self centered douche. And please stop to change each others minds, thats what causes wars and ovarian cancer.
It's my lame attempt at irony. Using "socialist" and "utopia" together is more of a hidden joke on my part.
Under a socialist society individuals are meaningless, their rights can be trampled upon, their property confiscated, their lives destroyed all for the "Common Good" of the collective.
Under Socialism individuals possess nothing, because it is the State which determines the minimum standard of living good enough for the Collective and forceably removes and redistributes individual wealth so that all achieve this arbitrary minimum standard.
Under socialism no one is allowed to profit, because profit is evil; it produces inequality and is only the motive that drives "greedy capitalists." An artist who creates a masterpiece or an inventor who toils to create something new and innovative, does not profit from his effort; he cannot profit, for in the name of "Equality" his work belongs to the collective group. His profits are therefore forcibly removed and handed over to the lesser competent in the name of Equality.
Under socialism you cannot better your standard of living; you cannot rise up the social ranks when there are none. The station you were born in is the station you will die in. You will not leave behind an inheritance for your children, you will not imagine a better future for them or hope that their lives will be better than yours-- there is no better, there is no worse, there is only equality.
Freedom and socialism are antithetical and cannot exist within the same sphere. Socialism means that your life is planned and organized by the supreme elites who control the machine of the state. They decide how much you are allowed to earn, which jobs you are worthy of, under which standard of living you will suffer through your days.
Socialism, Communism, Fascism, it makes no difference. They are all forms of Totalitarianism where individuals are no longer recognized as such, only insignificant cogs in the Collective Machine. It should come as no surprise that Socialism leads to Totalitarian Dictatorships-- Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Kim Jong Il.
What we are going through is economic fascism. If we had true free market capitalism since the later half of the 20th century we would not be having this discussion right now.
Were you trying to trip me up and make the claim that countries in Europe have great health care systems or something? Please stop watching SiCKO.
Watch this and the other parts when you have time.
It's disturbing how much is ignored by news media. Media has a long neglected responsibility to inform the population on the events of the world which has long since taken a back seat to biased information being presented as 100% fact. If it's not being mentioned constantly by popular media, we end up forgetting things ever existed (like the fact that the jury is still out on cell phones causing brain tumors but since phone companies buy a lot of advertising time that has been pushed out of the public eye leading everyone to believe it must have been resolved.)
The vast majority of the population (including myself) couldn't tell you all the countries we have troops stationed in on active duty but, do know John and Kate are having marital issues.
Months back I made myself sick watching the dirt campaign being run on fox news over the public option. Fox framed the democrats (with evil music) as somehow deceptively using the public option to render privatized healthcare obsolete even though Obama and other politicians flat out said in plain english " We're not trying to hide anything. Private healthcare providers won't be able to compete unless they lower they prices which, is something they won't do." Common sense and my ability to see past the flame graphics and dark brooding music allowed me to see it was bullshit but I had to concentrate to hear what the politicians where saying and not just be guided by the presentation to think Obama was the anti-christ.
News media needs to be like Helvetica font; designed so it says nothing in of itself, only the words convey the message without any personality or bias. To bad it will never happen (unless alien robots that have no use for our planet or our resources take over journalism.)
@ Junkie_XL:
In pure socialism, where no classes or casts exist, how could there be elites? What you went in depth to describe as socialism is pretty much the system the U.S is in now. The poor stay poor and the elite make all of the decisions and control the media to maintain this relationship prevent the advancement of those who don't share their ideals.
Forgot about this thread. That was a cute post but it was loaded with emotion instead of logic.
Let me pre-face by saying I respect you and your work John. My intent isn't to make enemies around here. (I can't really afford to...lol) A lot of you guys rock with your craft.
I just have serious reservations with the loving hand of the nanny-state many of you embrace. I have studied past cultures and governments quite well and it is impossible to put an entire case together in message board posts. I am well versed in this but it is difficult when people have been indoctrinated with an entitlement mindset completely different from my own.
Entitlement mindset. Dude, you cant act like your unbiased and logical and then throw out power words with implications like that. It ruins any and all you want to say. On top of that, you come across as arrogant with "studied past cultures and governments quite well and it is impossible to put an entire case together in message board post".
Look, I didn't even bother to read the rest. It just looked like one of your rants and confusion of where socialism, Marxist, democracy, Republics all split apart. On top of that, one could ask, if your so versed, where is your Phd in Sociology?
Technically you are correct Doomivox because the elite are power hungry and will even fight amongst themselves to be ruler. Socialism is essentially just defining a direction being headed...moving to the left. A form of government that is 100% left is considered a Monarchy (ruled by a singular one). Such a thing has never really existed anyway.
People tend to get things confused. They call Bush a facist and think fascism is extreme right wing while democrats as socialists are on the left. Technically Bush was a leftist too. FISA wiretapping, Patriot Acts, war mongering are all leftist ideas to strip people of their rights and their liberty. Obtaining almost total government control is taken through two paths...socialism (gradualism) and fascism which is a sudden and quicker iron fist. These two groups are at odds with each other. Stalin and those before him took the path to communism through a socialist one while Hitler's path was a war mongering quicker fascist-like version.
I guess I just made a case that democrats are better than neocons since they don't take us down the wrong path as fast...lol
What we live in is the appearance of a Democracy but behind the curtain it is an Oligarchy (ruled by a few, the elite). A small group of individuals who run the show...today we call them republicans and democrats. If we were in a true democracy then 3rd parties would be allowed to compete on an even level playing field. But they are not allowed in the national debates. I believe that deal was signed between Clinton, Dole and the major networks in '96.
oXYnary this is for you. This describes the spectrum pretty well I think.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0[/ame]
Also you should know as well as I that a college education doesn't necessarily mean a person knows all. A person could have a masters in game art but you probably know a hell of a lot more than that person with less education.
Krugman is a perfect example of this. Someone with a lot of economics education and even a nobel prize. But he thinks to get out of the economic crisis we have to do more of what got us into the mess to begin with. Throw more deficit money at it. A great education certainly doesn't mean a person knows what they are talking about. But that is getting into Keynesian economics vs Austrian economics and I don't care to bore anyone with that. Krugman is a Keynesian.
Lol so now 'socialist' is like the new insult?
hehe
Obviously utopias don't work ... but common sense does.
nah I don't like insulting people. I just like debate. I probably shouldn't have called John's post "cute". That was sort of out of line and condescending on my part.
Part of me would like the utopian ideas of zeitgeist addendum to work. But like you said, I just know it won't.
Believe it or not I used to be a huge democrat...lol My turning point was around 2006 or so when I seen democrats not bothering to bring the troops home. Then I seen democrats blocking people like Kucinich from moving forward with his articles of impeachment against Cheney and Bush. That made me step back a bit and analyze the state of affairs with things.
Suddenly my libertarian friends who I once considered bat shit insane started making sense and I would read the material they would give me. It made me realize that the conservative approach was the correct one. But it isn't a Fox News type of "conservatism" wrapped in a neocon cloth of fascism. But a more common sense conservatism.
It really opened my eyes as to why both parties suck ass.
Anyway I wanna drop a few more edge loops before I hit the sack. So 'night...heh.
Both parties do suck, Generally, I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I don't get "Fox News" conservatives, most of the people that are angered by tax raises and want the tax cuts, aren't affected by them.
I can't tell you how many times I see on fox news people talking out of fear against something they don't really know about/or that would actually help them.
"..war mongering are all leftist ideas to strip people of their rights and their liberty"
please.. go on
World War I = Woodrow Wilson (democrat) His mandates led to the cost of American deaths on the Lusitania, the prime instigator that brought us into WW1
FDR (democrat) = WW2. Ending oil trade with Japan forced their hand to bomb pearl harbor...(on purpose because war is profitable...unknown)? Eisenhower & MacArthur (republicans) worked to get us out. Although it is hard to argue against taking out Hitler so I'll leave that as a wash.
Truman (democrat) = Korean War. Eisenhower put the screws to this in 1953 luckily.
JFK (democrat) almost started a nuclear confrontation with the Russians. (although he might be more innocent than others if you believe operation northwoods or not)
Lyndon B Johnson (democrat) escalated vietnam troop levels to 100,000 which caused it to become the disaster it did. Nixon ended this before his first term...although maybe not fast enough so I shouldn't give Nixon a total free pass on that one.
More current...
Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 = Clinton (democrat). 4 day bombing run. Bombed Iraq more times during this short period than Bush Sr. did during Gulf War 1. The Iraqi Liberation Act also gave dubya an excuse to go into Iraq whining all the way by saying "you let clinton do it, so let me".
Kosovo = Clinton (democrat). Policing the world once again.
Those two were much better reasons to impeach Clinton than over a blow job IMO.
btw, communism & socialism isn't even the same category, google it
They are both to the left of center. One more extreme than the other. The latter is more a description of political direction on the pendulum.
ugh jesus this thread again. was about to just ignore it but i'll respond out of respect.
Junkie, my brother.
first things first -- yeah dude no need for a disclaimer bro. i know we're just arguing and it's cool, i don't take it personally, it's fun. in fact, i'm going to go a little overboard.. here, when ever i say 'fuck' in this thread, just imagine john malkovich in burn after reading:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7CR8WkUi-4[/ame]
hahahaha
now.
once again, with respect sir you're making totally ridiculous distortions here about socialism. what you're describing in some sort of extreme Stalinist communism. you're saying totally ridiculous things.
you missed dolemite's point. England has many solutions for the problems that you're suggesting without being an fantasy "socialist utopia". you speak as if i live in some sort of dream world when i talk about socialism, but this shit is ubiquitous. Canada, the UK, and France are not the type of socialist countries that you're describing. we are happy, free people who enjoy a very high standard of living. We can do what we want and start businesses. I'm a fucking business owner for god's sake. I value personal development and I'm not stopping for shit. This fantasy you have where you can't be 'free' in countries like Canada and the UK because some sort of oppressive government force is keeping you down is total fucking bullshit. it doesn't exist in the countries that the US would do well to role model.
two things:
1. "the right"? really? is this part of nature? we created that shit.. AND -- on what moral basis did we create that "right"? they are, of course, suggestive of a certain level of moral development, and quite frankly we can probably do better. honestly, the bill of rights? I'm not fucking impressed. that's right. we can do much better.
2. I completely think people should have the right to profit from their work and grow and become more wealthy. do you fucking hear what I'm saying?? once again, i'm not a communist. I am a proponent of certain socialist programs, most of which are already proven and working
"I would start with the Communist Manifesto."
why? why the fuck would you suggest this? i know all about communism, and I dont support it at all. fuck communism and fuck people who call themselves Marxists. they call all eat a dick in the starbucks in hell. (the same dick)
where does it stop? Do you think money grows on trees?
no... i think it stops when motherfuckers like you and I who have brains make goddamn decisions about what is reasonable and what isn't.. that's why this shit needs to come from a higher moral center-- one that isn't black and white and retarded. let me sound conservative here. I'm more than happy to pay higher taxes to provide reasonable health care for everyone. I am NOT in favor, however, of financially supporting some poor lazy motherfucking BUM who isn't interested in working.. fuck him, he can die with a dick in his mouth (haha). I WILL however pay taxes for his therapy and education.. but we already do that in Canada, and once again, my living standard is awesome. there are a lot of socialist programs that work great and we've got a budget for. we draw the line somewhere we choose consciously, because we're not fucking retarded.
we certainly agree on the military / mi complex.
lemmetellyousomethinjack, if you think i watch tv, you got another thing commin. I think for myself, and you're welcome to challenge me on that outright.
your questions..
Well, i don't need to answer the first one, because like i said, all of the social programs that i'm really supportive of have already been implemented in other countries and work very well. this aint new ground. you peeps in the US pay tax just like us here in Canada, we just spend it on more socialist programs. there's BARELY a difference as it is for god's sake! what about your roads, for fuck sakes? and your firemen? anyway. when you dont pay your tax in the US, there are lots of processes for dealing with that, and I see no reason that they need to change. if anything, they can become a lot more tactful, probably. once again, the only reason you asked me that question is because you think i'm a fucking communist. I'm not. Do I look like robin hood to you? no, i dont. fuck him. he's an ugly stupid fucking asshole.
love - excuse me, but holding your loved ones up to a higher moral ideal is HUGELY about love. "No jimmy, I'm not going to let you keep that shit you stole from mrs. jenkins, because doing things solely for your own benefit isn't moral" or "no jimmy, it isn't okay to hire sweat shop workers just because it's cheep and legal" I dont give a shit if jimmy doesn't understand, and he just wants to keep what he "earned"
to the person who's only vantage point is himself, and who sees the world as a dogpile, then he should grow, even if it's painful in the short term. that IS love -- but it's fatherly love.
"Why would any self-professed free thinker submit himself to the whims of a body collective?"
because anyone who can call himself enlightened (that's right fuckers, I'm going to claim that) understands how the individual is integrated into the collective without losing his individuality. without losing his individuality -- that's the whole holy-fuck important point here. if i don't have freedom to expand myself on an INDIVIDUAL basis, then you don't even HAVE a collective - you've got a bunch of oppressed fuckers in a tyrannical state. any collective that's worth a shit is made out of happy healthy prosperous individuals, working together.
individuals, working together -- you know, like a fuckin orgy.
these ideals of mine have nothing to do with sacrifice.
one more thing-- I'll watch those videos for you, just cuz you asked.
but seriously. starting with "animals in canada get far better care than human beings"
what kind of a fucking thing to say on tv is that? that's so intellectually BANKRUPT that it sends up massive red flags. it's straight up emotional communication and CERTAINLY has no factual or intellectual basis. I mean it almost belongs in Idiocracy. they might as well say "people in FAGnada all have to suck doctor dick to get healthcare"
Simply put the republicans want to move up the list, the Democrats want to move down the list. Both sides are useless as they don't want to admit that's what they are pushing for.
With that said, you have to look at each issue with out caring whose side you would end up on. For health care you have to ask yourself what are the upsides and downsides to each position, and why we even have health care providers in the first place.
The reason we have health care providers is because people wanted a safety blanket in case something bad happened so they wouldn't be bankrupted by the medical bills. The only other option was to put away money into a savings account, a "rainy day fund" in case something happened. The thing is people in a capitalist society suck at saving money because they are supposed to be using that money. Because of this need insurance company's popped up to fill the need. They were able to make lots of money off the money they were given because they only had to pay out to a select few and were able to keep whatever wasn't used.
The argument for a government based health care system;
A government based health care system gets money from every tax payer creating a HUGE reserve of money. The larger the reserve the less likely you are to have the money run out when people start needing it. The reserve can also make interest helping pay back some of the debt we have. It would also serve as the low bar for other health care providers, because why would you get more coverage unless your getting more rewards. If something isn't covered by the gov plan then free market would anyways be there to pick up the slack. With the Gov plan the free market cant pull some of the shit it can now. They would have to cover things not covered by the gov plan and couldn't drop you for preexisting conditions.
So what do you think are the good things of keeping things the way they are now?
I'm really sleepy. I'll read this all tomorrow and reply to it in better detail. I could only keep my eyes open for the videos. I just found it funny you posted Carlin and specifically that clip. I really like him but I guess for different reasons because it seems you missed his point. Carlin is a social libertarian from what I recall.
You should listen to that clip again specifically from about 3 minutes to the end. What he is talking about is exactly why government sucks and why the constitution should be followed. Japanese internment was a very sad state of affairs and if they would've had their constitutional rights protected what happened to them wouldn't have been possible.
What he's getting at is our rights are not respected. He's not against rights at all if that was what you took from it. He's mocking our system which doesn't protect them like they should. At the end he makes the point, "the government does not give a fuck about you". I could not say it any better.
The free health care we are about to embrace is loaded with lobbyists pushing for it. Big pharma is going to reap the rewards at the cost of more inflation for the rest of us proletariat's. Government is about to make that industry a ton more money. And when us young people get old enough to need some serious care it won't be there and will most likely be crippled. In the same way SS and medicare is set to run out once the baby boomers get their entitlements.
I'll cover more of what you said tomorrow. I need to do some stuff here before I go to bed...
Before I go I want to ask people. Is anyone here aware of what will become with SS and medicare over the next 10-20 years? Does it scare you? You now want government to handle this for us? They couldn't even manage cash for clunkers properly and that was peanuts.
I keep hammering this word and I guess people are rolling their eyes over it. But people need to understand what causes inflation. I'll say it again...inflation. Did $4-5 per gallon scare you? Are you ready for double digit gas prices?
edit: thegodzero. scroll up and watch the video on republic vs democracy. all forms (not capitalism) you listed are in the same bracket of control with different methods of attaining those goals.
I did watch the video, the thing is he mentioned then moved on too quickly from the line about how excess causes a drooping of the guard. I know why he did, but it's a very important bit of info that he passed by. Because it means that all republic's will transition into a democracy, which will eventually turn into a oligarchy. So by that guys reasoning that means that the only true lasting governmental power is an oligarchy. But as well all know that's not even true, because that will just lead to anarchy. Good video, lots of good info, but none the less has a mangled conclusion. The truth is there is no true lasting for of government, every type is just a transitional period to the next. Yes some states last longer than others, but it doesn't negate the type of governments.
This discussion isn't about that, its about how screwed we are currently, and how/if the new proposed system would be helpful. The thing is as soon as a person brings in the idea of sides we get all uppity. "Hey i wanted heads! You must have rigged it to land on tails!" "What are you bitching about it landed on heads the last few times!"
Yeah, its sad we don't live in a republic anymore. What do you want to push for anarchy so we can get to an oligarchy sooner? What no one has yet to address is that we are in a world where you really cant have a republic. There is too much power in corporations/money for a micro sized gov to work. Why do you think Rome was able to push those gov expansion ideas forward? You don't want company's to be left to their own devices.
I'm falling asleep, can't keep typing mehh had more to say gone now.
Why does everyone think it will be free? That's why they protest, they don't want to pay/be taxed for shit they wont use. And besides, when the government starts to get involved, it will just get worse. Paying for something worse sounds great, doesn't it?!
Here in Brazil you get free college education and healthcare. I study at the free college but I pay an optional fee that funds housing for poor students from the countryside. And I pay for private healthcare system even though I could just walk a couple blocks down and get free treatment (that in the end, everyone pays for).
But I don't really mind it. There are poor people out there and they don't have many options, yet the society depends on their workforce to sustain itself.
There's a great episode on This American Life about our healthcare system
It basically explains how US healthcare is a frankenstein of all the worst features of a market driven system and all the worst features of a government run system.
market - good at bringing costs down but doesn't gaurantee coverage for everyone
government - good at gauranteeing coverage for everyone but bad at keeping costs down
what we have - doesn't guarantee coverage for everyone and bad at keeping costs down
I was always taught the political spectrum was more like a circle, republic's and democracy's at the middle of the top, fascism and communism on their respective sides at the bottom.
Replies
prices rise because people wants to get paid.
in norway for example, food prices over the last 10 years has increased by almost 40%.
politicians in norway tried to combat high food prices by reducing the tax on food.
instead, the prices stayed the same, and the food chains pocketed the extra money from the reduced sales tax.
people will always buy food first, which means they must spend less money on fun things.
maybe they go less to restaurants,movies, or buy cheaper TVs and computers.
then the restaurant owners increase prices, to "adjust" for the lower income, and the same do movie theaters, and the TV and computer salesmen.
it was housing that was one of the primary reasons the US economy got as broken as it is today.
everyone buys a house eventually. but the banks were not securing the loans they made to people, so anyone could borrow millions, and buy themselves the mansion they could never afford. So people did, and never paid the banks back, so the banks ended up with big holes in their pockets.
then the bankers got a "really smart idea". they started selling these loans to other banks, and it turned out to be a very profitable business.
they also started advertising that everyone could get a huge loan and buy the mansion they always dreamed about. the banks would then take the loan and sell it.
and thats what people on wall street do for a living.
Why does everyone think it will be free? That's why they protest, they don't want to pay/be taxed for shit they wont use. And besides, when the government starts to get involved, it will just get worse. Paying for something worse sounds great, doesn't it?!
We pay taxes for our Police and Fire departments, even though you hope you never will have to use them, it sure is nice knowing that they are available just in case you do.
Even if my taxes go up to support it, it's a small price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing that, God forbid, I ever find myself out of a job and without health care, my family will have health care available to them if one of us happens to get sick.
I want the government involved as much as possible in shit like this. Deregulating the already greedy and corrupt health care system is the WORST thing that could possibly happen.
1. this bullshit about the government being worse than private industry is about as ridiculous of a myth as there is. government run industries don't turn even close to a high profit as privately run companies, but are usually not psychopathic in their behavior. in fact, those two things are *somewhat* related.
2. -- "i don't wanna pay for things i don't use!" -- tough luck. people that bitch about not wanting to pay for education, for example, because they don't have kids, are criminally unwise and they need to mature. at a certain point we need to hold people to a higher standard.
if you're in this culture and you bitch and wine about not wanting to be part of it, that's insane. The concept that you can live separate from some sort of social structure is a total fucking illusion. your identity is a goddamn social construct. there's nothing independent about you.
people who don't give a shit about others and who are worried about being dragged down by having to support social programs like FUCKING HEALTH CARE can suck a dick. that's not moral, and i'm not goign to pretend that it is. it's narcissistic. ASIDE from the fact that it's less developed to use your separate self sense as the only reference point when making a decision (extremely so), it IS beneficial to your separate self that the community that you live in flourishes and it's people are healthy.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
of course it's not quote "free" but what is cheaper, having 10-20% in your taxes for healthcare or paying 50% of your paycheck to a insurance company? by the way insurance companies don't actually give you healthcare, they make money off the transaction and tell you what you can and cannot do.
Can't help but think things wont change though, they never do, not till someone figures out how to enact real change in these self destructive masses. But oh well, things aren't that bad, when you think about it things are still pretty good. Life goes on, just keep the boob tube off fox news and your blood pressure will stay down. There's some free medicine for ya.
INSURANCE AND HMO INDUSTRIES SPEND NEARLY $700,000 PER DAY TO KILL HEALTH CARE REFORM MEASURES
Whatever could their motivation behind this be
You really should watch some John Stossel on youtube. This is factually incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Government doesn't have any incentive to improve its services because it has nothing to compete with. Free market competition is always better for the consumer.
So I guess the next time you are in a room with 3 other people and you have a $20 dollar bill in your pocket you should give $5 to each of them otherwise it would be hypocritical not to do so.
The sad part is you are correct. Man used to be free and independent and the founders envisioned America to be that way at one time. Not any more.
This is really hard to argue. You have a different mindset than I do. Don't be offended but what you advocate for is socialism. It is the taking of something from someone to give to someone else by force. The IRS coming and taking your house at gun point because you don't pay your taxes is the very opposite of a society that prides itself on freedom.
You will eat these words some day. The hidden little secret about the national debt is that is was never designed to be paid back. It is merely a figure of how much currency is in the system. Every year that the national debt grows bigger is a devaluation hit on your own purchasing power. Money you've saved becomes worth less and less because the law of supply and demand dictates the more of something means less demand for it. In terms of dollars it requires more of them to purchase the same things you did before. Inflation essentially.
I care about people a great deal. Inflation is the primary factor in what keeps the poor and middle class down. People can never get ahead. The republicans and democrats both do not understand this (or they do not care) and that is very sad.
Many here despise capitalism I suspect. People need to recognize if we had true free market capitalism we wouldn't be having many of the problems we have today. Corporatism is the culprit. People need to research this more.
"Government doesn't have any incentive to improve its services because it has nothing to compete with. Free market competition is always better for the consumer."
Law makers have to compete with other law makers.
"So I guess the next time you are in a room with 3 other people and you have a $20 dollar bill in your pocket you should give $5 to each of them otherwise it would be hypocritical not to do so."
WTF? Seriously, that comment just ruined my will to read the rest of your post. TLDR. I'll skip down to the end though.
"Many here despise capitalism I suspect. People need to recognize if we had true free market capitalism we wouldn't be having many of the problems we have today. Corporatism is the culprit. People need to research this more."
INCORRECT!
Private companies are good at things that require efficiency. The government is good at things that require redundancy, like the fire department, military, police, and health care.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers
Once again, think about where you will be if you lose your jobs or are no longer able to be covered under mommy and daddy's health insurance tomorrow ... or if a "pre-existing condition" manifested itself at your current job and you really don't want to spend the rest of your life there because you will need the health insurance coverage if future, related problems should choose to manifest themselves ... of course, I can see where you are coming from, obviously these huge, greedy corporations have all of your best interests at heart, right?
The "competition" that lawmakers appear to engage in is a myth. If law makers actually cared about you, NAFTA that ships jobs to Canada and mexico would end, the wars all around the world would end and the money saved, etc. People need to stop blaming republicans all the time and realize our two party system is actually a single party. Think of the democrats and republicans as two different mafia groups. They might shoot each other once in a while but they will not disrupt their crap shoot at the top of the pyramid.
My extreme analogy with the $20 bill still applies though even if you think it sounds crazy. What John was advocating for was taking from someone to give to someone else. And that is all fine and dandy until they come knocking on your door wanting you to share the fruits of your labor.
It's good to see you recognize the efficiency side of the private industry. btw my beef is not with local governments. The individual states can operate however they see fit when it comes to fire, roads, police, etc. Competition between states is a great thing. I'm only referring to government on the federal level which is worthless. They've proved time and time again to be working against the will of the people.
The best way to not fear for another neocon like dubya coming along and abusing power is to strip the federal government of most of its power completely that has nothing to do with national defense.
http://www.cchconline.org/issues/hmorise.php3
Government involvement is why HMO's became a nightmare.
If you're concerned with lobbyists then you should take note of why the big pharma lobbyists are embracing public option with such open arms. Could it be because they love the idea of sending their bills to the government?
Again, like I said before...insurance would drop very quickly if smaller ticket items were treated like anything else you buy. Instead of prices being invisible and the medical industry charging insurance companies whatever they want to cover you. This is why health insurance is skyrocketing. Both parties do not talk about this. If they have, the MSM is not reporting it.
If you served our country then the viewpoint is different. You should be taken care of since the only thing the federal government was supposed to do in the beginning is provide for national defense. Doing more for veterans is something we should do.
I personally could not afford to cover insurance for a child if I were to have one. I can only cover myself and the wife. Therefore we choose to not have a child and stick others with the bill until our economic situation takes a turn for the better.
You're assuming I have a problem with people in Canada and Mexico having the opportunity to work (I don't). Grow a pair and work harder. And as for war? Give me a break. Go to countries with no government and see how peaceful it is.
"My extreme analogy with the $20 bill still applies though even if you think it sounds crazy. What John was advocating for was taking from someone to give to someone else. And that is all fine and dandy until they come knocking on your door wanting you to share the fruits of your labor."
I have been working and paying taxes since I was twelve. I don't mind.
"It's good to see you recognize the efficiency side of the private industry. btw my beef is not with local governments. The individual states can operate however they see fit when it comes to fire, roads, police, etc. Competition between states is a great thing. I'm only referring to government on the federal level which is worthless. They've proved time and time again to be working against the will of the people."
hmmmm.... That's a pretty broad statement. I think the federal government is a lot better than the local government of Oklahoma. Tattoos were illegal until a few years ago, and I still can't buy beer on Sunday. In many states there was no such thing as marital rape until the 90s. And butt sex was also illegal by state laws. Not to mention Jim crow.
The thing with health insurance is that it is better for consumers the bigger the pool of money gets. So if everyone is in a pool together, there is more money for you when you get sick. That's why group insurance plans you get through your employer are better than private insurance plans. And why national health insurance programs are better than group insurance.
"If you served our country then the viewpoint is different. You should be taken care of since the only thing the federal government was supposed to do in the beginning is provide for national defense. Doing more for veterans is something we should do."
But if private insurance is so much better than why don't we just make veterans buy their own health insurance. It would be better for them right?
You know it just really seems that these people look at one another and say, "I got your back". Because for a few dollars more, you can help that person by having a public option. People need help, not everybody can pay to have insurance, and even if you have insurance doesn't mean your problems will be fixed.
What I really think should happen though is a single payer system, but there is too much corporate greed in the states for that to happen. I'm really glad I'm Canadian, it may not be the best, but it works well for me.
There is nothing stopping them from locking arms together and keeping prices high. Takes the punch right out of shopping around when the prices are fixed. The supposed low balling effect could happen right now but its not.
Forcing people to shop around on big illnesses doesn't work. That's why the shop around option is always prefaced with "on the little stuff".
The saving on the little stuff will quickly be overshadowed by raising costs. The shop around method just shifts the insurance companies bills to the people. Puffing up their already bloated bottom line.
They still control costs on everything.
They turn a - on their books into a + (by passing the bill onto us).
Our costs increase.
Our plans decrease.
Costs still run wild.
How is that better for us?
Its a big bonus to them....
Who decides what is small and big ticket, government? Insurance? Me? My doc? Is that a fixed line or does it get renegotiated as times change? If costs go up does the definition of small ticket increase to cover big ticket items?
Insurance companies are scared of a public option because it would operate under a different pretense. Save money provide quality care which is very different from exact the maximum amount of profit from the system any way you can. They should be operating under first now but aren't.
Red Team: I have money, fuck you, hurry up and die. The world will be a better place once you are gone.
Blue Team: But I was on my way to making my millions... so what happens to you when you lose your money?
Red Team: That's easy your wife and kids will bail me out just like you did wall st. See, reward always flows up never down, because I'm better than you and I deserve your money. See Regan had it right with trickle down economics but he was dyslectic.
It's not lazy people sucking money off the government. It's an agreement to pick you up when you get knocked down so you can pick me up when I get knocked down. So we can all stand together.
Let me make my point clear, insurance companies don't actually provide healthcare. They simply make money off the transaction. Even if you don't like the gov't getting involved in healthcare, you should at least be against insurance companies. why give money to a company that takes 30-50% of that money, tells you what kind of treatments you can and cannot get, and then tells doctors that maybe they'll be paid for the treatments they use.
many people in the U.S have swallowed this massive propaganda pill that suggests that somehow socialist structure leads to the removal of freedom. They distort what socialism actually is as a result of a conservative fear. Canada has many social programs and I have total choice. if i feel sick i can go to any clinic i want, and it's automatically covered. it takes like 5 seconds to sign in.
I might have to wait about 30 minutes
I don't have to go to some appointed hospital
I get help from what ever doctor is working
that doctor gets to work where ever the fuck he wants
What you're calling socialism sounds more like some sort of Stalinism.
"...$20 dollar bill in your pocket you should give $5 to each of them...."
This is the type of stuff that i'm talking about. WHY -- on EARTH, would you think that me supporting the BLIND distribution of wealth, would be in any way hypocritical of my socialist values? you clearly have no understanding of socialist democratic systems. it has nothing to do with the blind redistribution of wealth.
It has everything to do with realizing that YOUR FREEDOM is only valuable inside a social area. human beings are pack animals, and it's important for everyone who isn't a psychopath to see his neighbor thrive. that's called "love" -- and as you know, love is predicated on a healthy love of self, not self sacrifice. freedom is central to any socialist system working properly -- but we've got a problem here -- should we support one's freedom to be sociopathic and care only for himself?
NO. we fucking shouldn't:
the only solution to suffering is genuine human compassion, and that means having the desire to GIVE OF YOURSELF. this is an emotionally and spiritual evolved issue and we need some sort of structure to encourage people to mature to the point where the can operate in this way. This is the "higher standard" that i'm talking about.
YES. it's more mature to care if my neighbor thrives, and to be less concerned about taking for myself, and if we're going to move forward as a culture, we've got to stand up and fucking announce that.
now- this concept of the people in the military being somehow automatically heroes because they're serving their country, and somehow I'm NOT, is bullshit.. and it's EXACTLY the type of problem that I'm speaking to. you and your family are a part of your culture and as such, you contribute to america. your serving your country right now, but entering into a debate that will create new ideas. hopefully we'll both be lifted up. if that isn't a service to the country, i dont know what is.
now note -- even the most staunch conservative will support socialism in SOME area. it does work in the military, quite well.
but if we do away with the concept that the mlitary are the only people who are serving the country, and we decide to create a governing body that holds the people to a standard higher than egocentrism, why the hell shouldn't I get free health care? do we really WANT a culture that only supports people being ready to die for their country? is that what we really want as a standard? doesn't that seem sort of.. well.. totally fucked up?
the concept that you, you patriot, would avoid having a CHILD because you couldn't afford it.. that's.. horrific! that's horrible!
don't you feel like you live in a culture that has failed you, when you're afraid to do the most basic of all human behaviors? this is a goddamn war against fucking evolution!
gold.
i am the wall-of-text KING.
thanks
[ame]
s/
But it's the free market, I guess next time their son is murdered they can go to a different hospital. Kind of like how if you don't like Sony TVs, next time you can buy a Panasonic
/s
Let me pre-face by saying I respect you and your work John. My intent isn't to make enemies around here. (I can't really afford to...lol) A lot of you guys rock with your craft.
I just have serious reservations with the loving hand of the nanny-state many of you embrace. I have studied past cultures and governments quite well and it is impossible to put an entire case together in message board posts. I am well versed in this but it is difficult when people have been indoctrinated with an entitlement mindset completely different from my own.
The simple fact is. People have a right to keep the fruits of their own labor.
That "massive propaganda pill" you refer to has a rooted cause for concern by many. I don't mean for this to sound rude but you clearly have not studied history. I would start with the Communist Manifesto. It involves an explanation on how you slowly dismantle freedoms through various planks of gradualism. One of those planks is the creation of a central bank such as the federal reserve. If you do not understand economics and how government regulation works against you, then it is impossible for you to understand why health care costs and other things are at insane levels right now.
Another plank is akin to the corporatism that I suspect you, I, and even Michael Moore despises today and could all agree on. People really need to stop confusing capitalism with what is going in this day and age. We can agree on a lot of things. I just know many liberals come to the wrong conclusions. I am conservative but I don't vote for 98% of the republicans just to be clear because they have failed me just as equally.
Yes the system has failed me. But I don't believe the answer to solve the mess you seek is correct. You say "why shouldn't I get free health care". Aside from the fact that this sounds very "entitled", my only answer is, where does it stop? Do you think money grows on trees? Further, you need food to survive...so should we have universal grocery insurance as well?
Your comparison with the military is fair. I do not agree with policing the world as we do. I do not support the middle-east wars. Part of the reason Canada can afford health care for its' citizens is because you don't have troops in 170+ bases in 130+ countries all around the world. I respect Canada and other countries like Switzerland on this subject. Don't attack and you won't be attacked. Our national debt is a big problem in the US and until people understand how inflation works we just can't afford any more large boondoggles like health care.
That is to say I don't believe there should be no military. It just wouldn't be nearly as expensive if we only used our military for defense instead of going around the world looking for dragons to slay. Part of our problems in the middle east with why we are so hated originates with the United States CIA led coup in Iran in 1953 but this is going off into a different subject so I'll stop.
Our military should only be used as it relates to the just-war theory of christianity IMO. Only attack when you are attacked first. I disagree with the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan because they are not the problem. If you want to target a nation based on the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers then technically Saudi Arabia should've been our focus. Of course that doesn't make sense either. You can't attack an entire country based on a few thugs. That's why the "war on terrorism" is such a stupid concept. It is an invisible enemy that gives the military industrial complex a reason to keep asking for more funds to infinity.
If Americans want to know why they are so broke and wonder where their money is being pissed away to, that is your culprit. Taking from you to give to Haliburton is called "corporatism". Government giving to most industries thru deficit spending is what causes prices to rise. It's a supply and demand issue as it relates to dollars. Your money is worth less and less each year.
This is why I find it hilarious when democrats embrace the same stuff republicans get themselves involved with. Spending more and more for programs just continually makes everyone more poor. I resent the idea that because I am a fiscal conservative who wants fiscal responsibility means I don't care about the poor and middle-class who don't have health insurance.
I just view solutions from a completely different angle. It is something most people don't understand sadly thanks to all of the retarded programming the mainstream media fills our glowing boob tubes with. Nobody reads books anymore.
American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc...Everything is designed to keep people in a stupefying naive bubble so they don't do too much critical thinking on their own in regards to these subjects. So the elite can keep robbing them us blind. GE for example (who owns NBC) profits greatly in the middle east. Many executives own dividend paying stock in companies that directly benefit from this kind of corporatism.
This extends not just to the military, but to other industries. You think Al Gore really care about the planet? lol Research how carbon credits work. Ken Lay of Enron helped him devise his carbon credit scheme. Global warming paranoia...cap & trade laws...a lot of what you embrace is designed to rob you blind. Corporatism is a transfer of wealth from you to corporations using the government to do so legally.
This is a small part of the problem with rising prices. Not capitalism.
Anyway, I really digressed there...really badly and I'm sorry. lol
I have some questions for you John...
How will you institute your imaginary desire for a socialist utopia? When those who are unwilling to go along with how you think handing out free stuff should work, do you point a gun in their face?
There is no love at the point of a gun.
John,
Why would any self-professed free thinker submit himself to the whims of a body collective? Socialists are always railing about their "individuality" and "creative expression", yet never contrast these concepts against their state-based solutions for humanity. Man has proven to be such an incorrigible and fallible creature throughout the ages that the dispersal and dilution of power is essential. Productive humanitarian endeavors can be accomplished through the volition of the individual, as opposed to enforcement via the barrel of a gun.
And with that...I'm spent...back to art...lol
edit: i should edit most of this out but I'm too bored with it now...
Is England a socialist Utopia?
jk.
It's my lame attempt at irony. Using "socialist" and "utopia" together is more of a hidden joke on my part.
Under a socialist society individuals are meaningless, their rights can be trampled upon, their property confiscated, their lives destroyed all for the "Common Good" of the collective.
Under Socialism individuals possess nothing, because it is the State which determines the minimum standard of living good enough for the Collective and forceably removes and redistributes individual wealth so that all achieve this arbitrary minimum standard.
Under socialism no one is allowed to profit, because profit is evil; it produces inequality and is only the motive that drives "greedy capitalists." An artist who creates a masterpiece or an inventor who toils to create something new and innovative, does not profit from his effort; he cannot profit, for in the name of "Equality" his work belongs to the collective group. His profits are therefore forcibly removed and handed over to the lesser competent in the name of Equality.
Under socialism you cannot better your standard of living; you cannot rise up the social ranks when there are none. The station you were born in is the station you will die in. You will not leave behind an inheritance for your children, you will not imagine a better future for them or hope that their lives will be better than yours-- there is no better, there is no worse, there is only equality.
Freedom and socialism are antithetical and cannot exist within the same sphere. Socialism means that your life is planned and organized by the supreme elites who control the machine of the state. They decide how much you are allowed to earn, which jobs you are worthy of, under which standard of living you will suffer through your days.
Socialism, Communism, Fascism, it makes no difference. They are all forms of Totalitarianism where individuals are no longer recognized as such, only insignificant cogs in the Collective Machine. It should come as no surprise that Socialism leads to Totalitarian Dictatorships-- Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Kim Jong Il.
What we are going through is economic fascism. If we had true free market capitalism since the later half of the 20th century we would not be having this discussion right now.
Were you trying to trip me up and make the claim that countries in Europe have great health care systems or something? Please stop watching SiCKO.
Watch this and the other parts when you have time.
[ame]
The vast majority of the population (including myself) couldn't tell you all the countries we have troops stationed in on active duty but, do know John and Kate are having marital issues.
Months back I made myself sick watching the dirt campaign being run on fox news over the public option. Fox framed the democrats (with evil music) as somehow deceptively using the public option to render privatized healthcare obsolete even though Obama and other politicians flat out said in plain english " We're not trying to hide anything. Private healthcare providers won't be able to compete unless they lower they prices which, is something they won't do." Common sense and my ability to see past the flame graphics and dark brooding music allowed me to see it was bullshit but I had to concentrate to hear what the politicians where saying and not just be guided by the presentation to think Obama was the anti-christ.
News media needs to be like Helvetica font; designed so it says nothing in of itself, only the words convey the message without any personality or bias. To bad it will never happen (unless alien robots that have no use for our planet or our resources take over journalism.)
@ Junkie_XL:
In pure socialism, where no classes or casts exist, how could there be elites? What you went in depth to describe as socialism is pretty much the system the U.S is in now. The poor stay poor and the elite make all of the decisions and control the media to maintain this relationship prevent the advancement of those who don't share their ideals.
Entitlement mindset. Dude, you cant act like your unbiased and logical and then throw out power words with implications like that. It ruins any and all you want to say. On top of that, you come across as arrogant with "studied past cultures and governments quite well and it is impossible to put an entire case together in message board post".
Look, I didn't even bother to read the rest. It just looked like one of your rants and confusion of where socialism, Marxist, democracy, Republics all split apart. On top of that, one could ask, if your so versed, where is your Phd in Sociology?
People tend to get things confused. They call Bush a facist and think fascism is extreme right wing while democrats as socialists are on the left. Technically Bush was a leftist too. FISA wiretapping, Patriot Acts, war mongering are all leftist ideas to strip people of their rights and their liberty. Obtaining almost total government control is taken through two paths...socialism (gradualism) and fascism which is a sudden and quicker iron fist. These two groups are at odds with each other. Stalin and those before him took the path to communism through a socialist one while Hitler's path was a war mongering quicker fascist-like version.
I guess I just made a case that democrats are better than neocons since they don't take us down the wrong path as fast...lol
What we live in is the appearance of a Democracy but behind the curtain it is an Oligarchy (ruled by a few, the elite). A small group of individuals who run the show...today we call them republicans and democrats. If we were in a true democracy then 3rd parties would be allowed to compete on an even level playing field. But they are not allowed in the national debates. I believe that deal was signed between Clinton, Dole and the major networks in '96.
oXYnary this is for you. This describes the spectrum pretty well I think.
[ame]
Also you should know as well as I that a college education doesn't necessarily mean a person knows all. A person could have a masters in game art but you probably know a hell of a lot more than that person with less education.
Krugman is a perfect example of this. Someone with a lot of economics education and even a nobel prize. But he thinks to get out of the economic crisis we have to do more of what got us into the mess to begin with. Throw more deficit money at it. A great education certainly doesn't mean a person knows what they are talking about. But that is getting into Keynesian economics vs Austrian economics and I don't care to bore anyone with that. Krugman is a Keynesian.
hehe
Obviously utopias don't work ... but common sense does.
nah I don't like insulting people. I just like debate. I probably shouldn't have called John's post "cute". That was sort of out of line and condescending on my part.
Part of me would like the utopian ideas of zeitgeist addendum to work. But like you said, I just know it won't.
Believe it or not I used to be a huge democrat...lol My turning point was around 2006 or so when I seen democrats not bothering to bring the troops home. Then I seen democrats blocking people like Kucinich from moving forward with his articles of impeachment against Cheney and Bush. That made me step back a bit and analyze the state of affairs with things.
Suddenly my libertarian friends who I once considered bat shit insane started making sense and I would read the material they would give me. It made me realize that the conservative approach was the correct one. But it isn't a Fox News type of "conservatism" wrapped in a neocon cloth of fascism. But a more common sense conservatism.
It really opened my eyes as to why both parties suck ass.
Anyway I wanna drop a few more edge loops before I hit the sack. So 'night...heh.
please.. go on
btw, communism & socialism isn't even the same category, google it
I can't tell you how many times I see on fox news people talking out of fear against something they don't really know about/or that would actually help them.
World War I = Woodrow Wilson (democrat) His mandates led to the cost of American deaths on the Lusitania, the prime instigator that brought us into WW1
FDR (democrat) = WW2. Ending oil trade with Japan forced their hand to bomb pearl harbor...(on purpose because war is profitable...unknown)? Eisenhower & MacArthur (republicans) worked to get us out. Although it is hard to argue against taking out Hitler so I'll leave that as a wash.
Truman (democrat) = Korean War. Eisenhower put the screws to this in 1953 luckily.
JFK (democrat) almost started a nuclear confrontation with the Russians. (although he might be more innocent than others if you believe operation northwoods or not)
Lyndon B Johnson (democrat) escalated vietnam troop levels to 100,000 which caused it to become the disaster it did. Nixon ended this before his first term...although maybe not fast enough so I shouldn't give Nixon a total free pass on that one.
More current...
Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 = Clinton (democrat). 4 day bombing run. Bombed Iraq more times during this short period than Bush Sr. did during Gulf War 1. The Iraqi Liberation Act also gave dubya an excuse to go into Iraq whining all the way by saying "you let clinton do it, so let me".
Kosovo = Clinton (democrat). Policing the world once again.
Those two were much better reasons to impeach Clinton than over a blow job IMO.
They are both to the left of center. One more extreme than the other. The latter is more a description of political direction on the pendulum.
Junkie, my brother.
first things first -- yeah dude no need for a disclaimer bro. i know we're just arguing and it's cool, i don't take it personally, it's fun. in fact, i'm going to go a little overboard.. here, when ever i say 'fuck' in this thread, just imagine john malkovich in burn after reading:
[ame]
hahahaha
now.
once again, with respect sir you're making totally ridiculous distortions here about socialism. what you're describing in some sort of extreme Stalinist communism. you're saying totally ridiculous things.
you missed dolemite's point. England has many solutions for the problems that you're suggesting without being an fantasy "socialist utopia". you speak as if i live in some sort of dream world when i talk about socialism, but this shit is ubiquitous. Canada, the UK, and France are not the type of socialist countries that you're describing. we are happy, free people who enjoy a very high standard of living. We can do what we want and start businesses. I'm a fucking business owner for god's sake. I value personal development and I'm not stopping for shit. This fantasy you have where you can't be 'free' in countries like Canada and the UK because some sort of oppressive government force is keeping you down is total fucking bullshit. it doesn't exist in the countries that the US would do well to role model.
now:
The simple fact is. People have a right to keep the fruits of their own labor.
[ame]
two things:
1. "the right"? really? is this part of nature? we created that shit.. AND -- on what moral basis did we create that "right"? they are, of course, suggestive of a certain level of moral development, and quite frankly we can probably do better. honestly, the bill of rights? I'm not fucking impressed. that's right. we can do much better.
2. I completely think people should have the right to profit from their work and grow and become more wealthy. do you fucking hear what I'm saying?? once again, i'm not a communist. I am a proponent of certain socialist programs, most of which are already proven and working
"I would start with the Communist Manifesto."
why? why the fuck would you suggest this? i know all about communism, and I dont support it at all. fuck communism and fuck people who call themselves Marxists. they call all eat a dick in the starbucks in hell. (the same dick)
where does it stop? Do you think money grows on trees?
no... i think it stops when motherfuckers like you and I who have brains make goddamn decisions about what is reasonable and what isn't.. that's why this shit needs to come from a higher moral center-- one that isn't black and white and retarded. let me sound conservative here. I'm more than happy to pay higher taxes to provide reasonable health care for everyone. I am NOT in favor, however, of financially supporting some poor lazy motherfucking BUM who isn't interested in working.. fuck him, he can die with a dick in his mouth (haha). I WILL however pay taxes for his therapy and education.. but we already do that in Canada, and once again, my living standard is awesome. there are a lot of socialist programs that work great and we've got a budget for. we draw the line somewhere we choose consciously, because we're not fucking retarded.
we certainly agree on the military / mi complex.
lemmetellyousomethinjack, if you think i watch tv, you got another thing commin. I think for myself, and you're welcome to challenge me on that outright.
your questions..
Well, i don't need to answer the first one, because like i said, all of the social programs that i'm really supportive of have already been implemented in other countries and work very well. this aint new ground. you peeps in the US pay tax just like us here in Canada, we just spend it on more socialist programs. there's BARELY a difference as it is for god's sake! what about your roads, for fuck sakes? and your firemen? anyway. when you dont pay your tax in the US, there are lots of processes for dealing with that, and I see no reason that they need to change. if anything, they can become a lot more tactful, probably. once again, the only reason you asked me that question is because you think i'm a fucking communist. I'm not. Do I look like robin hood to you? no, i dont. fuck him. he's an ugly stupid fucking asshole.
love - excuse me, but holding your loved ones up to a higher moral ideal is HUGELY about love. "No jimmy, I'm not going to let you keep that shit you stole from mrs. jenkins, because doing things solely for your own benefit isn't moral" or "no jimmy, it isn't okay to hire sweat shop workers just because it's cheep and legal" I dont give a shit if jimmy doesn't understand, and he just wants to keep what he "earned"
to the person who's only vantage point is himself, and who sees the world as a dogpile, then he should grow, even if it's painful in the short term. that IS love -- but it's fatherly love.
"Why would any self-professed free thinker submit himself to the whims of a body collective?"
because anyone who can call himself enlightened (that's right fuckers, I'm going to claim that) understands how the individual is integrated into the collective without losing his individuality. without losing his individuality -- that's the whole holy-fuck important point here. if i don't have freedom to expand myself on an INDIVIDUAL basis, then you don't even HAVE a collective - you've got a bunch of oppressed fuckers in a tyrannical state. any collective that's worth a shit is made out of happy healthy prosperous individuals, working together.
individuals, working together -- you know, like a fuckin orgy.
these ideals of mine have nothing to do with sacrifice.
one more thing-- I'll watch those videos for you, just cuz you asked.
but seriously. starting with "animals in canada get far better care than human beings"
what kind of a fucking thing to say on tv is that? that's so intellectually BANKRUPT that it sends up massive red flags. it's straight up emotional communication and CERTAINLY has no factual or intellectual basis. I mean it almost belongs in Idiocracy. they might as well say "people in FAGnada all have to suck doctor dick to get healthcare"
okay I'm done. hahah that was fun.
[ame]
p.s - i am cute. kiss me.
"studied past cultures and governments quite well and it is impossible to put an entire case together in message board post"
Then say something like this,
"Socialism, Communism, Fascism, it makes no difference."
In case your wondering here are the major types starting from right to left,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Simply put the republicans want to move up the list, the Democrats want to move down the list. Both sides are useless as they don't want to admit that's what they are pushing for.
With that said, you have to look at each issue with out caring whose side you would end up on. For health care you have to ask yourself what are the upsides and downsides to each position, and why we even have health care providers in the first place.
The reason we have health care providers is because people wanted a safety blanket in case something bad happened so they wouldn't be bankrupted by the medical bills. The only other option was to put away money into a savings account, a "rainy day fund" in case something happened. The thing is people in a capitalist society suck at saving money because they are supposed to be using that money. Because of this need insurance company's popped up to fill the need. They were able to make lots of money off the money they were given because they only had to pay out to a select few and were able to keep whatever wasn't used.
The argument for a government based health care system;
A government based health care system gets money from every tax payer creating a HUGE reserve of money. The larger the reserve the less likely you are to have the money run out when people start needing it. The reserve can also make interest helping pay back some of the debt we have. It would also serve as the low bar for other health care providers, because why would you get more coverage unless your getting more rewards. If something isn't covered by the gov plan then free market would anyways be there to pick up the slack. With the Gov plan the free market cant pull some of the shit it can now. They would have to cover things not covered by the gov plan and couldn't drop you for preexisting conditions.
So what do you think are the good things of keeping things the way they are now?
I'm really sleepy. I'll read this all tomorrow and reply to it in better detail. I could only keep my eyes open for the videos. I just found it funny you posted Carlin and specifically that clip. I really like him but I guess for different reasons because it seems you missed his point. Carlin is a social libertarian from what I recall.
You should listen to that clip again specifically from about 3 minutes to the end. What he is talking about is exactly why government sucks and why the constitution should be followed. Japanese internment was a very sad state of affairs and if they would've had their constitutional rights protected what happened to them wouldn't have been possible.
What he's getting at is our rights are not respected. He's not against rights at all if that was what you took from it. He's mocking our system which doesn't protect them like they should. At the end he makes the point, "the government does not give a fuck about you". I could not say it any better.
The free health care we are about to embrace is loaded with lobbyists pushing for it. Big pharma is going to reap the rewards at the cost of more inflation for the rest of us proletariat's. Government is about to make that industry a ton more money. And when us young people get old enough to need some serious care it won't be there and will most likely be crippled. In the same way SS and medicare is set to run out once the baby boomers get their entitlements.
I'll cover more of what you said tomorrow. I need to do some stuff here before I go to bed...
Before I go I want to ask people. Is anyone here aware of what will become with SS and medicare over the next 10-20 years? Does it scare you? You now want government to handle this for us? They couldn't even manage cash for clunkers properly and that was peanuts.
I keep hammering this word and I guess people are rolling their eyes over it. But people need to understand what causes inflation. I'll say it again...inflation. Did $4-5 per gallon scare you? Are you ready for double digit gas prices?
edit: thegodzero. scroll up and watch the video on republic vs democracy. all forms (not capitalism) you listed are in the same bracket of control with different methods of attaining those goals.
This discussion isn't about that, its about how screwed we are currently, and how/if the new proposed system would be helpful. The thing is as soon as a person brings in the idea of sides we get all uppity. "Hey i wanted heads! You must have rigged it to land on tails!" "What are you bitching about it landed on heads the last few times!"
Yeah, its sad we don't live in a republic anymore. What do you want to push for anarchy so we can get to an oligarchy sooner? What no one has yet to address is that we are in a world where you really cant have a republic. There is too much power in corporations/money for a micro sized gov to work. Why do you think Rome was able to push those gov expansion ideas forward? You don't want company's to be left to their own devices.
I'm falling asleep, can't keep typing mehh had more to say gone now.
True. In socialist Greece, healthcare pays you.
Well, they don't really pay you but we've got decent healthcare. We need it after all, subce the government need people to milk and steal money from.
Here in Brazil you get free college education and healthcare. I study at the free college but I pay an optional fee that funds housing for poor students from the countryside. And I pay for private healthcare system even though I could just walk a couple blocks down and get free treatment (that in the end, everyone pays for).
But I don't really mind it. There are poor people out there and they don't have many options, yet the society depends on their workforce to sustain itself.
It basically explains how US healthcare is a frankenstein of all the worst features of a market driven system and all the worst features of a government run system.
market - good at bringing costs down but doesn't gaurantee coverage for everyone
government - good at gauranteeing coverage for everyone but bad at keeping costs down
what we have - doesn't guarantee coverage for everyone and bad at keeping costs down