RE: National Service
February 9, 2017 at 1:14 pm
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2017 at 1:14 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(February 9, 2017 at 1:11 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(February 9, 2017 at 1:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yeah..the more I think about this, the more I don't like it. You get to keep the medical care that's been supporting you since birth...as long as you come work for the federal gov't.Pretty much, specifically because it's the labor of those who don't opt out the national service that -provides- that healthcare in the first place, in that system.
Quote:I'll say it again, it's not the government's purpose or job to coerce people to work for it. Something about that just seems distinctly creepy and excessive.I think I can get you closer to agreeing than you are now, even if you'd still never sign on.
I think we're just not going to agree on this issue.
Well, like I said I might be open to extending some of the benefits that those who serve enjoy, to other areas of civil service. I'm with you on that (key word being "some"...and to what extent I dunno). But giving those benefits to children, then taking them away unless they work for the gov't seems cranky to me. It's just not what the government's job is. If you're for a national health system, fine, but holding it hostage on the condition that you work for the federal gov't isn't something I can get behind...that's kind of why it's called universal health care.
To answer your second question, I'm a federal employee working in biomedical research.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson