Uni Health Care

[dry land fish]

I don't know how anyone can say "oh well, too bad" to a child dying of cancer who's only mistake was being born to a family that can't afford healthcare.

Well maybe not. It has to be ran past DLFish first as she's in charge of deciding who lives and who dies. I believe children with cancer would come under her "free treatment" program. Or maybe all children. Or was it only the children of NOT lazy fucks? Unless that mother has 6 other kids, then she falls into the "baby-factory-vagina" and the child is denied healthcare. Or was it the mother is just denied pre-natal care but the unhealthy babies this may produce get the health-care?

I forget who gets what under her system. Too many variables.

I'm not trying to decide who lives and who dies. How can anyone think that it's fair to take money from people to give it to other people? That's what taxes do already. Imagine getting paid cash at the end of your work day. Your employer hands you a hundred bucks for your eight hours. Then he says "oh well by the way I'm taking sixty dollars of your money to go to the schools, county roads, SSDI, SSI, and then to give to people who are too poor to afford health insurance, food, clothing, and other basic needs. That's what taxes are and we don't need those taxes that give money to poor people. If they didn't work for it then they don't get it. I'm not rich but I'm also not on food stamps or state assistance. I do NOT want to give my money that I earned to people who don't have any money. They need to find a job or do something for money besides take money from those who have a job. They could start by not having children they can't afford!! Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do? If someone has a child and they get cancer and they die then it happens. Just because they are a child we are supposed to feel bad? That's the way it is. We live and we die and some of us don't live as long as others. I'd never expect anyone to pay for my cancer. As a matter of fact most peoples high end health insurance policies don't even cover cancer. Now the tax payers are supposed to cover it? NO NEW TAXES. We are taxed enough already.

What's all this argument over Libertarianism? It's pretty simple. If it doesn't concern us or take our EARNED money then we don't give a damn. For example Libertarians are:
Pro Marijuana Legalization for personal use. We don't care if someone smokes until they pass out as long as they leave us alone.
Pro Prostitution. We don't care how many hookers somone pays for or who decides to be a hooker as long as they leave us alone.
Pro Abortion. Again...we don't care how many people abort their pregnancies as long as they leave us alone
Anti Taxes...we would like to keep our money that we worked for.
Pro whatever religion as long as they mind their own business and leave us the hell alone.

Get the pattern? We don't care about ANYTHING as long as it's not harmful to anyone other than the person who is doing it. We feel that people should be able to make their own decisions and we promote responsible decision making. That's why we are anti welfare. It's just not responsible for people who can't afford kids to have them and then live off of taxpayers. They need to keep working their Mc jobs and be childless or get an education, get a good job, and then reproduce. Maybe we are A- holes...but at least we mind our own business and contribute to the system instead of sponge off of everyone else. A Libertarian is likely to have a neighbor that's growing pounds of Marijuana or making meth and not say anything to anyone...because it's not any of our business as long as they don't bother us with their operation. I think we need more Libertarians because we mind our own damn business

Here is the link to the party. http://www.lp.org/

If you want to know what we are about then go there.

[Minimalist]

Economic not social.

You kid yourself, sir. It is an almost impossible distinction to make. The two are hopelessly intertwined.

[Tiberius]

Economic not social.

You kid yourself, sir. It is an almost impossible distinction to make. The two are hopelessly intertwined.

Don't see quite how. If it affects money, costs, taxes, spending, etc it's economical. If it affects people, rights, liberty, etc it's social.

Pretty easy distinction for me.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Pretty easy distinction for me.

I can see that,and understand your common sense position.

There is a simple explanation for everything,and it's wrong" (H L Mencken)

[Kyuuketsuki]

You see Adrian ... I don't see how you can separate economics from social for socialism, socialism (to my mind) is the entire package so with what you appear to be saying about economics I don't really see how you can claim to be socialist.

Er ... haven't read the whole thread but I think that's the gist.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

You see Adrian ... I don't see how you can separate economics from social for socialism, socialism (to my mind) is the entire package so with what you appear to be saying about economics I don't really see how you can claim to be socialist.

Erm...I'm not claiming to be a socialist. I'm claiming to be left-wing on social issues, and right-wing on economic issues.

Socialism itself is an economic system, not a political system. Left-wing politics is a political system that uses socialism as an economic system and a social system that changes "traditional social orders".

however, socialism itself is not a political system; it is instead an economic system distinct from capitalism (link)

If you go to the Left-wing politics page at Wikipedia (I know you hate it, but still...) you will see in a "Positions" section that includes Economics (noting that socialism is the most common system for the left), and Social progressivism (noting the break from traditional values supported by the left). There are other positions in the article, but those are the two I am focussing on.

Left-wing politics is a combination of ideas, including those of socialism and social progressivism. You may very well have to be a socialist to agree with all the ideas of the left (since they include socialism), but you do not have to be a socialist to agree with a select number of them. I agree with social progressivism for instance.

Likewise, right-wing politics is a political system that uses capitalism as an economic system. However it rejects the ideas of social progressivism, seeking to keep with traditional values. I disagree with this, but I agree with capitalism as an economic system.

To put it another way: (ticks indicate my position)

The Left:
- Advocates socialism as an economic system.
- Advocates social progressivism. (tick)

The Right:
- Advocates capitalism (and in the most cases are anti-communist) as an economic system. (tick)
- Advocates traditionalism.

These ticks define the so-called "right-wing libertarianism" that I belong to politically, by economic and social policies.

So no, I'm not claiming to be a socialist. I'm just making clear that the term "left-wing" covers many political ideas, of which I subscribe to a select few (the social ones), and "right-wing" covers many political ideas, of which I subscribe to a select few (the economic ones). Socially left, economically right.

This distinction was brought up in the "are you left, right, or centre" thread when Eilonnwy said she was left wing but didn't consider herself a socialist (interesting read).

[Dotard]

I'm not trying to decide who lives and who dies.

But you already made a list of 'who gets what'. You said old folks, some kids, retarded people.....
You were deciding who was worthy of public health assistance.

How can anyone think that it's fair to take money from people to give it to other people? That's what taxes do already.

And is that fair?

......I'm taking sixty dollars of your money to go to the schools, county roads, SSDI, SSI, and then to give to people who are too poor to afford health insurance, food, clothing, and other basic needs.

Pay taxes to pay for schools for those lazy fat bastard that can't afford to pay for their own childrens education. Check

Pay taxes to support those geriatic societal leeches that can't pay for their own retirement. Don't even ask about their needed medications. Check

Would these be abolished in your political ideals? If not, why not? "I DON'T WANT TO" give my hard-earned money to these people! They need to get a job or do something for money and quit leeching off me.

Hypothetical here:

DLF, thru some unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances loses her job, insurance and whatever money she has in the bank. She then contracts an easily treatable, yet expensive and, if left untreated, deadly medical problem.

Does she then say "Oh well, I will die now." ?

Or if it's her Mum under the same circumstances does she tell her "Sorry Mum, get right with your God since you have no money you must die." Or her child.[/quote]

[Kyuuketsuki]

You see Adrian ... I don't see how you can separate economics from social for socialism, socialism (to my mind) is the entire package so with what you appear to be saying about economics I don't really see how you can claim to be socialist.

Erm...I'm not claiming to be a socialist. I'm claiming to be left-wing on social issues, and right-wing on economic issues.

Fair enough ... I got the impression you were

Kyu

[dry land fish]

I'm not trying to decide who lives and who dies.

But you already made a list of 'who gets what'. You said old folks, some kids, retarded people.....
You were deciding who was worthy of public health assistance.

How can anyone think that it's fair to take money from people to give it to other people? That's what taxes do already.

And is that fair?

......I'm taking sixty dollars of your money to go to the schools, county roads, SSDI, SSI, and then to give to people who are too poor to afford health insurance, food, clothing, and other basic needs.

Pay taxes to pay for schools for those lazy fat bastard that can't afford to pay for their own childrens education. Check

Pay taxes to support those geriatic societal leeches that can't pay for their own retirement. Don't even ask about their needed medications. Check

Would these be abolished in your political ideals? If not, why not? "I DON'T WANT TO" give my hard-earned money to these people! They need to get a job or do something for money and quit leeching off me.

Hypothetical here:

DLF, thru some unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances loses her job, insurance and whatever money she has in the bank. She then contracts an easily treatable, yet expensive and, if left untreated, deadly medical problem.

Does she then say "Oh well, I will die now." ?

Or if it's her Mum under the same circumstances does she tell her "Sorry Mum, get right with your God since you have no money you must die." Or her child.

[/quote]

Taxes that go to poor people are NOT fair. No matter how you look at it it's not fair. Educating people is fair. Educating kids that are born to those "fat lazy bastards" is extremely important. How do you stop the poverty cycle? EDUCATION. We need kids to do well in school and go on to college. There are jobs people can get that are available all over the world. Take my field for example. I can find a geology job anywhere in any country in the world that anyone would care to live in. If the US economy tanks I can move. I'm not opposed to leaving the USA. People need to start thinking outside of the box.

If I lost my job today I'd be ok for at least six months. I do have a savings account. I know that a savings account is unheard of but people need to cut up those credit cards, stop spending money they don't have on crap they don't need, and save their money. Those old people need a retirement account. The old people now lived in a time when a retirement account was unheard of. We need to slowly start getting rid of social security. Slowly start getting rid of welfare. We can't cut it off all at once but we need to start going in that direction. If someone would be smart, get an education, get a good job, and save....they will be fine. Having kids at 18 and working at Wal Mart for twenty years doesn't cut it. Sure we need people to work those jobs and we have tons of high school and college students who are perfect for those minimum wage jobs with no benefits. We need CEO's of those big companies but they actually have went to college and were business majors and I'm sure they contrbute to our economy...not drain it. If people would get a GOOD job they wouldn't need free health care. I don't know any place that pays 60 grand or more a year who doesn't have an awesome health plan. So....if people want good health care they had better get an education and not ass around about it. Why complain about wanting something for free if you can work for it and get it yourself? Don't you think it would be more rewarding for someone to know they EARNED something and were in control of their own life instead of relying on the government to send them their free cheese every month? Don't you want our economy to get better? How is rewarding people for doing NOTHING going to help us? It's going to keep them poor because why would they need to work? Uncle Sam will pay for them if they get sick, Uncle Sam will feed them, give them section eight housing, pay for their babies, pay for their electricity...I mean...seriously is this what this country needs right now? Lets spend all of the money we would be spending on welfare and healthcare to put into our schools. This country has terrible grades in math and science. Those are the two subjects that can make or break a student. We need more engineers, scientists, doctors, chemists, and hydrologists. Lets get kids the best cutting edge technology in their schools and lets get them good teachers to teach them science and math. Lets spend extra money on students who are bad in math to make them good at it and to give them confidence. Especially the poor inner city schools.....they NEED this extra attention if those students are ever going to be more than their parents.

[Dotard]

Oh boy. Again we have a person who thinks they know what people need and don't need.

How the fuk do you know if a person is buying something they need it or not? And your solution is so simple, "If people would just get good jobs.....".

You ma'am, are nothing but a spoiled brat who thinks the poor are poor by choice. The downtrodden are there because they want to be downtrodden. That all people have to do is get a good job. Don't you think they fukin' know that?!

Oh look at me! I can get a GOOD job anywhere therefore everyone else can too! You're a fukin' moron if you truely believe that. Good people end up in bad situations due to uncontrollable circumstances all the time. Oh "ALL THEY HAVE TO DO is get an education and quit assing around".


Taxing people to help the poor maintain a decent standard of health is unfair yet taxing me to pay for YOUR FUKIN KIDS schoolin' is fair?! YOU had the damned things, YOU pay to educate them. Poverty cycle? If you can't afford to educate your kids then don't have them! If you do anyways then it's your own damned fault they end up in the poverty cycle. Stop making me foot the fukin' bill.

People who work at Wal-Mart should not be allowed to have children unless they can pay for their education. It's not fair I have to be taxed to support that.

You say people who cannot afford to pay for their health should die.
Using your same logic I say people who cannot pay for their education should be left to poverty, with no money for healthcare and then die.

Like you can use eugentics to weed out the poor people.