- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,023
- Reaction score
- 14,666
- Location
- Near Seattle
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Kinda obvious he did.
Really? How so? go back and listen VERY carefully. au contraire.
Kinda obvious he did.
It's not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing.
Making a government that handles your needs is not a good way to form a working economy. It's not a good way to form a responsible society.
But another reason you keep it just to protections of rights and liberties is because what you desire has no real way to be defined and any service, be it a cell phone, healthcare, or housing can become a need if people become dependent on it.
Really? How so? go back and listen VERY carefully. au contraire.
I would suspect the more liberal members here would say you are responsible by proxy and by law. You're tax money goes to support those who are less fortunate by fiat. You may not be PERSONALLY responsible for anyone but yourself by choice, but by proxy you do support all the welfare, all the entitlements all the bad ideas and policies and bad laws that this country has implemented since it began and will continue to do so until you either denounce and leave or die.
It's just a matter of which God you look at. Mine is much closer to the God of the OLD Testament, not the wussie one from the New Testament.
Hitler has similar views... eugenics, get rid of the undesirables.Some of us would have no problem with that. If you can't find a job that provides insurance at age 30, maybe you should just "go away".
It is a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. You believe the government should just function as a military with property rights and fundamental laws. I disagree. The government should also be a public arena that provides basic services that don't belong in the private sector.
Tell that to Norway.
Did you really just compare health care to owning a cell phone? Having a tumor removed is not a consumer item or cosmetic service. It's not a matter of "desiring" to have the tumor removed, I can have it removed or I can die a slow and painful death. What other product can this be said about? I can find food anywhere if I look hard enough, water too. I can't plant a health service tree or convert seawater into treatment. You're so worried about being dependent on a government product, but have no problem being dependent on a private product.
No, DA can choose to think in a selfish way (I don't have any responsibilty to my fellow citizens, just myself), America is a free country after all, but someone with what I view as a better moral standard would feel a responsibility to the society he lives in.
Responsibility to society means trying to make that society better for the people in it (which includes himself) and for the future. What I see as a better society is one that doesn't let people die due to lack of medical cares when the society can afford to provide that care. A better society is one that would provide basic human necessities (like food, water, and temporary shelter) to the needy if that society could provide it. That is why in my view, the US is a better society than Somalia and many other developing countries. You can argue that US society could not afford to provide these necessities to the needy - but why it is that it can afford the billions for war?
Maybe he feels that a better society is where everyone is free to do whatever they want with limited (limited to what?) or no government interference. And that standing by while people may be hurt or die from the consequences of a stupid decision is what makes a better society. To that I and many Americans would disagree. Somalia is free from many government regulations you and I currently have to deal with in a developed western country, but I'm glad of those regulations because they make the country much easier for me and others to live in, because while they restrict they also protect us.
DA and Henrin and Paul wants to talk about a Utopia where people either take responsibility for their actions or face the consequences and it has no repercussion on everyone else - but that ignores moral responsibilities and the connectedness of society. When someone choose to abuse drugs, it doesn't just affect him. Some drugs make the users more aggressive - that affects other people than the user. Drunk drivers are more likely to get into accidents - that affects other people than the drinker. Drug abusers are more likely to steal - that affects other people than the abuser. We can either try prevention, or we can let the people who got hurt deal with the consequences and say "It's not me, so I should be free to do what I want". When someone chooses to not buy health insurance or save enough for it when they can - it doesn't just affect them. It affects their family who will be left with the bill if they die from it. If they survive the impact on their wealth will still affect their spouse and children. We as a society can isolate ourselves from it (I don't have any responsibilty to my fellow citizens, just myself) by letting him die if he can't pay the bills upfront- but we still bear the immorality of letting someone die when it could be avoided.
I don't really see anyone ever draw a line in the sand. I hear many people say its there, but damn if I ever see anyone draw it. If you won't draw it, it doesn't exist.
Economists understand the damage that all of those programs do to the economy. Unemployment for example they all agree kills interest to get in the market. If they support them is largely depend on the damage it has caused and the need for those programs to continue because of it.
This is largely my point. Tell me, what has happened to the economies of the world? Where is the work ethic today? Where has it gone since all of this started? Down. Add to that, that most of these programs lower the value of money and it just turns to serve itself.
The thing about utopias is they promote a perfect world order. Libertarians do not promote a perfect world order. The term doesn't fly.
Feeling a responsibility and actually having it are not nearly the same thing. You can have all the moral connections you want to whatever you want but that doesn't mean they actually exist.
The funny thing is we can't afford either. That doesn't stop people from demanding one or other though. That is also not the point of anyone in here.
In any area you look for regulations, there are regulations that are there to protect and others that are there for control. In no way does any of that mean people should agree with every regulation meant for protection as you might conclude.
If you kill someone you are punished for the act.
No one is saying your actions can't affect others, that is in fact a topic for another day.
What we are saying is no one should have to do something just so someone can have what others have. That is their job to handle. In this case here what we need to do is put the market back in place to enable prices people can afford. Right now almost no one can afford any of it.
I always faced the morality argument. It's completely baseless.
You seem to have a liking for strawman. No where did I say that "people should agree with every regulation". All three sentences above in no way refute my arguments, if they even have a relation to it. I made clear that those are my views. If you disagree, instead of repeating what I wrote - that it's my view, as if that is any arguement against it, why don't you come up with rationale arguements against it?
The point is that if you kill someone, someone died. The issue is not the consequences for the perpetrator but the victim. In healthcare, by not buying health insurance the victim and the perpetrator are the same, but in many cases they are not.
Given the fact you either could not grasp the point that it's about the victims, or chose to ignore it, it seems like avoidance to me.
What you are saying is that you want to pay as little taxes as possible, so screw everyone else as long as the government provides what you want it to provide for you.
Of course it is to you: the gist of your thinking is that it's okay to let people die if they can't pay for the healthcare.
Rational against what? Which part are you talking about? Seems to be plenty of topics you touched that I could address? Which one do you desire I deal with?
And I'm well aware its your view. I'm a bit lost on why that matters.
Then the problem is the person didn't buy healthcare yes? That doesn't make it my problem.
The old prevention campaign to protect the world from possibilities. Never did make any sense.
What I'm saying is what I said.
Your morality says that I have to pay for others and therefore you force everyone to take part in your morality instead of facing yourself as it is your morality.
As for what I want. I want all kind of things, geez, seems like a great thing to revolve government around. But paying for others needs is good enough for now. You know, other than what I said taxes are for.
Morality which is your entire argument is a ridiculous concept that more times than not has no bearing on reality. Yours for example are completely baseless nonsense. As for the gist of my comments it clearly makes you sick and that is fine. Rational thinking usually does that to the dreamy.
So you want the reporter to go back and ask if he donated personally? I would find it to be in bad taste asking such a question about someone whom he cared for a lot. He is a close friend, worked with him over 12 years and started a donation to help pay for his medical bills. It would be odd if he didn't help him in any way privately or donated to his own donation. I'm sure there would be a record of it if investigated but I rather not look like a ass afterward. Nor do i need to know how much gave privately since it's none of my business.
What a ridiculous statement.
I can provide for anyone I want to.
Seriously, you make me laugh.
People are just fed up with the nanny state.
Are they really? Tell ALL Americans that you want to do away with all the entitlements and see what kind of response you get.
Its always a laugh riot seeing people that spend so much of their time expressing open contempt for religious folks cite religion in their arguments. Its so congruent.
.
You realize he isn't doing anything, yes? Oh right, he is against being entitled so he is doing harm. Sorry, forgot.
They didn't really chant let him die, did they. Nice try though. Secondly, they guy should've had health insurance. Why should we have to pay for his lack of responsibility?
This is a bogus topic. Ron Paul who I do not back never said let him die. this is just another attempt by radical Liberals to make it sound as if Tea Party members are as radical as the Liberals.
More BS from the left who cannot deal with the truth and the facts.
I am surprised any of them can stand after so much spin. It must be dizzying.
You know what else people are tired of?People are just fed up with the nanny state.