National Service

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, we could extend benefits to children as a matter of course.  When you become an adult and decide not to serve, those would be lost or reduced.

To put it in real terms. All around you people would have access to nationalized healthcare and free or reduced college educations..as well as preferential hiring treatment and financial assistance. Minor children, adults who served. You, on the other hand, because you had an ideological objection to so much as cleaning bedpans (or whatever else you may be interested in that our national service would be doing) while being paid to recieve ojt for 18 months..would not. You would be in a similar sort of situation as the majority of americans today.

[FatAndFaithless]

Again, we could extend benefits to children as a matter of course.  When you become an adult and decide not to serve, those would be lost or reduced.

Sorry, should've included another detail in my example.   My parents are not federal employees in any capacity, don't receive any perks/benefits from the gov't.  I hit 18 years old and choose to not do anything with the federal gov't as well.  Do I lose anything?  

If not, then it's not compulsory.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, you would lose access to the national health service (or other benefits)..that we could...for the third and final time, extend to children as a matter of course. Currently, we only extend service related benefits to service members children...I wouldn;t advocate for compulsory service unless those benefits were massively extended and enhanced..as I've already said in thread. I see no reason for a national service whatsoever (compulsory or otherwise) if the services it provides remain at the anemic levels they are currently at. We don;t need an army of road crews to let bridges fall into rivers, we don't need an army of healthcare workers if we're not going to provide healthcare, we don;t need an army of environmental cleanup crews if were not going to engage in environmental remediation, etc. -

-But if we are, then we can't ignore the neccessity and barrier of labor in providing broad access to those things. We have to put more into our services if we want to enhance them.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes, you would lose access to the national health service (or other benefits)..that we could...for the third and final time, extend to children as a matter of course.  Currently, we only extend service related benefits to service members children...I wouldn;t advocate for compulsory service unless those benefits were massively extended and enhanced..as I've already said in thread.

Oh, you're talking about a national health service that would only be available to federal employees/beneficiaries and children.  I thought you were talking about a national health service that's...y'know, for everyone.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is for everyone...that's a minor child or completes a period of service.  Hence the compulsion. You can keep your medicaid and your private insurers, as an ideological objector. Following?

[FatAndFaithless]

It is for everyone...that's a minor child or completes a period of service.  Hence the compulsion.  You can keep your medicaid and your private insurers, as an ideological objector.  Following?

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.  

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 we're just not going to agree on this issue.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.   If you don't want to invest (and remember that we're still talking about paid ojt....of all things), you won't get the dividend, or at least not the same dividend as those who did. The only fundamental difference between what we have now with servicemembers and this system, is that in the one I;d advocate for those services are vastly extended, necessitating a commensurate increase in people at the disposal of the system in order to deliver the services.

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 we're just not going to agree on this issue.

I think I can get you closer to agreeing than you are now, even if you'd still never sign on.  

For example, what do you do, for work...or better yet what do you want to do?

[FatAndFaithless]

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.   

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 we're just not going to agree on this issue.

I think I can get you closer to agreeing than you are now, even if you'd still never sign on.  

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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 practical.  In order to provide enhanced services to more people we will require a greater investment -from- people.  Those who opt out of this investment should reasonably expect not to be afforded the same level of services of those who do...just as we have it set up now.  No ones talking about throwing anyone to th wolves here.  Like I said, if you don;t serve..you end up in the same position that you are now in, in america, if you haven't served. 

It's just not what the government's job is.

It's the governments job to provide for the security and well-being of the people.  This is one way to do so.  

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.

National healthcare holds itself hostage, as does any national program, to our ability to fund and staff it.  

To answer your second question, I'm a federal employee working in biomedical research.

So, when you were 18, if you had the opportunity to spend 18 months working in support of a federal biomed project..and for doing so would receive access to benefits similar to those vets currently enjoy..you'd have turned it down on the grounds that it seemed creepy to have to do that.,..in order to receive those benefits?

[FatAndFaithless]

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 practical.  In order to provide enhanced services to more people we will require a greater investment -from- people.  Those who opt out of this investment should reasonably expect not to be afforded the same level of services of those who do...just as we have it set up now.  No ones talking about throwing anyone to th wolves here.  Like I said, if you don;t serve..you end up in the same position that you are now in, in america, if you haven't served. 

It's just not what the government's job is.

It's the governments job to provide for the security and well-being of the people.  This is one way to do so.  

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.

National healthcare holds itself hostage, as does any national program, to our ability to fund and staff it.  

To answer your second question, I'm a federal employee working in biomedical research.

So, when you were 18, if you had the opportunity to spend 18 months working in support of a federal biomed project..and for doing so would receive access to benefits similar to those vets currently enjoy..you'd have turned it down on the grounds that it seemed creepy to have to do that.,..in order to receive those benefits?

As an 18 year old I would've taken any job I could get.  I'm not objecting on the grounds that it sounds like a bad deal for the people that accept it, I'm objecting to the huge expansion of the federal government and the cycle it would create.  The people that grow up relying on the gov't can only keep the things they've been relying upon if they then work for the federal government.

I just don't think it's part of the government's job to be that huge a part of everyone's lives - even creating situations that are 'too good to refuse.'