Hi, I'm Mitt Romney and I have some great plans... lol...

[Flonne]

you dont have to pay higher taxes.

Not exactly sure where you think all the extra money is coming from, then. As it is, government run programs are a monetary black hole, they are run so inefficiently that, quite literally, a child could do better. I think we would be in less debt right now if some spoiled little kid that suddenly was given the ability to buy anything he wanted was in charge, that's how bad things are at the moment. I would VERY highly doubt that over 5% of the money for any given program is actually put into the program.

The absolute first priority before anything else is to completely reform everything about the current government regulation setup. Which would only be effective if they did it correctly, which they won't do, because it will be like cutting off their own legs; they don't WANT to lose the substantial power they've gained, and who can blame them? If they are born with the upper class mentality that they deserve these things and they truly are better than the lower class, how can one expect them to take away that power when they see it as a necessity of life? Basically, the only path from here is down, and it won't effect the ones that take us there in the least; they will be the first ones gone when the country collapses, with no significant losses to their own coffers, and everyone knows it. The US just so happens to be the current "biggest target" due to our wealth, I'm sure next they will be moving on to China or India once they develop their markets a bit more. We are expendable commodities at very best, only good for making a few fractions of a percentage of a stock value.

In a perfect world if everything were run correctly, I still don't know that I would support public healthcare, at least not to any meaningful extent; the money should be going to making the country better, not lifting up the lower class a tiny bit to make the national average look a bit less terribly pathetic. Health care for the physically disabled and military, and those who are TRULY unable to work due to medical conditions (and "I'm fat" isn't a medical condition, that's a life choice) is about all I can get behind. The rest of the healthcare system should be privatized; the free market can be cruel, but it's still a much fairer system overall than any government can be, since eventually it WILL balance itself out if a monopoly occurs. With forced government programs, EVERYTHING is in a constant state of monopoly, and that is not what this country was founded on.

[Eos]

Because I don't want to pay higher taxes just so some random bum that pineappleed his own life up gets free/cheaper healthcare.

And yet people with your mindset also seem to think that if they were in a horrible car accident tomorrow from an uninsured motorist that left you paraplegic or otherwise unable to work and contribute you'd expect "someone" to take care of you for the rest of your life.

You can't have it both ways. Either we're all equally taken care of, or everyone is on their own. Which of those sounds like the ideal of a matured and civilized society and which of those sounds like the dark ages?

[Stereo]

Convince me. What are you going to spend your $200k+ income on that's more important than a random bum's life? (I mention that tier specifically cause that's who is paying for Obamacare)

@ Flonne I think you misspoke, monopolies are the opposite of fair - whoever controls them sets prices completely arbitrarily, and in a purely free market they are self sustaining.

it's still a much fairer system overall than any government can be, since eventually it WILL balance itself out if a monopoly occurs.

I also take issue with

government run programs are a monetary black hole

the idea that if something's not profitable, we shouldn't ever do it. I would much rather a safety net that loses money, to a safety net with big holes in it because certain diseases cost more to treat than the person will ever earn in their lifetime (which is the 'economics' view - if someone's a loser, cut your losses and murder them). I'm disgusted by the idea that certain human lives are worth less than a 2-3% increase on your taxes. If you turn the question around, and ask, "would you kill a hobo if the government paid you $4000?" it's clear how deplorable it is to say yes.

[Flonne]

Convince me. What are you going to spend your $200k+ income on that's more important than a random bum's life? (I mention that tier specifically cause that's who is paying for Obamacare)

@ Flonne I think you misspoke, monopolies are the opposite of fair - whoever controls them sets prices completely arbitrarily, and in a purely free market they are self sustaining.

I also take issue with

the idea that if something's not profitable, we shouldn't ever do it. I would much rather a safety net that loses money, to a safety net with big holes in it because certain diseases cost more to treat than the person will ever earn in their lifetime (which is the 'economics' view - if someone's a loser, cut your losses and murder them). I'm disgusted by the idea that certain human lives are worth less than a 2-3% increase on your taxes. If you turn the question around, and ask, "would you kill a hobo if the government paid you $4000?" it's clear how deplorable it is to say yes.

I don't care if I made 200K a year or 200M a day, if I don't feel like giving it away, it belongs to me. Some billionaires prefer to give to charity, and that's fine too; the point is, the money does not belong to the government, it belongs to the person that worked for it.

That was exactly my point, monopolies ARE the opposite of fair; government run programs are in a permanent state of monopoly, while the free market eventually culls them out because new companies emerge.

Also, neither of those latter examples have any bearing on mine. I'm not murdering someone by not giving them free pomegranate; they can work for it like everyone else does or they can suffer the consequences of not doing so, they don't deserve my sympathy if they don't at least try.

And yet people with your mindset also seem to think that if they were in a horrible car accident tomorrow from an uninsured motorist that left you paraplegic or otherwise unable to work and contribute you'd expect "someone" to take care of you for the rest of your life.

I don't know about him, but I already stated that people physically unable to work should be given some leeway.

A black and white viewpoint where something is either totally for or totally against sounds more like it's from "the dark ages" than anything else, by the way...

[Eos]

I don't know about him, but I already stated that people physically unable to work should be given some leeway.

A black and white viewpoint where something is either totally for or totally against sounds more like it's from "the dark ages" than anything else, by the way...

What about single parents on minimum wage with multiple children who get sick?
What about a single man working who gets a non debilitating injury, or one that wouldn't be debilitating with the proper care, but can't afford to have the required surgery on what they make? What about the college kid on a scholarship who just got hit by a drunk driver and has no income and now requires extensive physical therapy and operations just to resume normal life? There are hundreds if not thousands of easily named scenarios.

Your "physically unable" criteria is more black and white than just giving everyone equal benefits and protections.

This "It's my money everyone else can fend for themselves" mentality is plain ignorance and fear of losing something without tangible reward, especially when coupled with blame. People don't choose to need medical attention. They get sick. They get hurt. Things happen beyond your control. Ensuring everyone is equally covered and that the cost of it is spread evenly benefits everyone except people so damn wealthy they can afford their own hospitals and never need to worry about the cost of anything, and even they could benefit from savings if our medical system wasn't designed to be a financial suck-hole that no one will address.

Everyone "deserves" to be healthy.

[Stereo]

I don't care if I made 200K a year or 200M a day, if I don't feel like giving it away, it belongs to me. Some billionaires prefer to give to charity, and that's fine too; the point is, the money does not belong to the government, it belongs to the person that worked for it.

So, rolling in a heap of money like Scrooge McDuck.

You can't have work without demand - isolate any billionaire on Mars and they'll find that suddenly no matter how hard they work, making executive decisions, they don't get any richer.

Rich people depend far more on the existence of poor people than poor people do on rich people, in the same way that top of the food chain predators need large numbers of prey.

I'm not murdering someone by not giving them free pomegranate; they can work for it like everyone else does or they can suffer the consequences of not doing so, they don't deserve my sympathy if they don't at least try.

Further, I'm still appalled that your default assumption is that they didn't try. It's exactly like a lottery winner telling everyone else they should have bought more tickets, and they could be winners too. It just plain ignores reality.

[Flonne]

What about single parents on minimum wage with multiple children who get sick?
What about a single man working who gets a non debilitating injury, or one that wouldn't be debilitating with the proper care, but can't afford to have the required surgery on what they make? What about the college kid on a scholarship who just got hit by a drunk driver and has no income and now requires extensive physical therapy and operations just to resume normal life? There are hundreds if not thousands of easily named scenarios.

Your "physically unable" criteria is more black and white than just giving everyone equal benefits and protections.

This "It's my money everyone else can fend for themselves" mentality is plain ignorance and fear of losing something without tangible reward, especially when coupled with blame. People don't choose to need medical attention. They get sick. They get hurt. Things happen beyond your control. Ensuring everyone is equally covered and that the cost of it is spread evenly benefits everyone except people so damn wealthy they can afford their own hospitals and never need to worry about the cost of anything, and even they could benefit from savings if our medical system wasn't designed to be a financial suck-hole that no one will address.

Everyone "deserves" to be healthy.

1) their own fault for keeping the babies or having them in the first place. If you aren't willing or able to support a child/children, you shouldn't have them; that's not our responsibility to subsidize.
2)If he's working, he should already have health care; if he works at a very low end job and doesn't, he would fall under the "physically disabled" category in the latter example, and in the former he would not. Not really much more to it than that...while this sort of system would encourage people to get hurt worse if they get hurt at all, it would still dissuade the weak-hearted from trying to take advantage of the system, and let's be honest here, that will be the majority in any situation, not just in this.
3)Why wouldn't he fall under that as well? If he's disabled without the therapy, it's the same as saying "he's disabled", since that's exactly what he will be if no help is given.
As to your last point...I will agree to disagree, we have fundamentally different opinions on this subject. I feel that not only is that not the case, but that most people DON'T deserve to be healthy. If you aren't putting something back into the market, you are worthless to society; me saying the disabled deserve healthcare is me meeting you halfway, because honestly, the best system nature has to offer is survival of those who survive (survival of the fittest isn't really a good way to say it, since that does not factor in luck, which is a major variable in all aspects of life whether we want it to be or not). If I were crippled in some way an hour from now I would still say this, but then, I've never been one to care for my own wellbeing, anyway. Call me suicidal by negligence, if you wish. People, creatures, living organisms...none of these groups are equal, within themselves or with the other groups alike.

Rich people depend far more on the existence of poor people than poor people do on rich people, in the same way that top of the food chain predators need large numbers of prey.

What does that have to do with anything...? If you are going to go that route, there will NEVER, EVER be a shortage of expendable bodies. Even if ten people took all of the world's wealth and somehow took the concept of trade/barter, everyone would still not die. Hundreds of thousands of people would still be drifting the planet aimlessly a decade later. If each of those 10 people had 5 capable slaves, they would still easily be able to live a life of luxury for the remainder of their lives. Trying to "topple the pyramid by removing the bottom" will not work when they own the entire pyramid, all of the people that made it, all of the resources used in the process of making said pyramid, and all of the land that the pyramids are located on.

Further, I'm still appalled that your default assumption is that they didn't try. It's exactly like a lottery winner telling everyone else they should have bought more tickets, and they could be winners too. It just plain ignores reality.

This world is full to the brim of people that never tried. Many of them I can observe in my own family. For some, the second they realize they don't need to work in order to survive, they stop trying and put double the effort into making themselves fit into the subset for free pomegranate, sometimes even going so far as to disable THEMSELVES just to get said free pomegranate. Now, that's not common, and they will usually just try to fake it as best they can, but there have been cases of that kind of thing occurring. Honestly, if someone is willing to cripple themselves to get a free ride, kudos to them, they deserve it, in a messed up sort of way. There are some genuinely handicapped people as well, and they deserve our help, too. But a perfectly capable person wanting handouts because "they can't get a job"? Hell no. There is no such thing as can't get a job in this country; in other countries, it really can be impossible to get a job. But we are not a third world country, last I checked. What we have here is "not willing to take that job", which is an entirely different situation. Worst case scenario, something that absolutely everyone has that is worth at least something is their own body.

None of this is really the issue at hand though; all of these things and more could be done by a good system of privatized healthcare. What we currently have is a system based on crony capitalism, not the free market; if the government wants to do something useful, reform the way they deal with the current system of privatized healthcare.

But again, that would be like shooting themselves in the foot; they profit off of crony capitalism entirely too much to ever try to abolish any aspect of it. The only thing that they would make MORE off of is forced government healthcare. So, by continually trying to force it through, they are continually showing how greedy they really are.

"For the greater good" is usually the last thing said by any given person or group before they descend into the depths of madness. The cliche' line that absolute power corrupts absolutely fits perfectly, for this.

[Locked]

Tch..

1) their own fault for keeping the babies or having them in the first place. If you aren't willing or able to support a child/children, you shouldn't have them; that's not our responsibility to subsidize.

What if they were married and got a divorce? Way to presume.

2)If he's working, he should already have health care; if he works at a very low end job and doesn't, he would fall under the "physically disabled" category in the latter example, and in the former he would not. Not really much more to it than that...while this sort of system would encourage people to get hurt worse if they get hurt at all, it would still dissuade the weak-hearted from trying to take advantage of the system, and let's be honest here, that will be the majority in any situation, not just in this.

Lmao. What world do you live in that you get accepted for health insurance automatically? Do you know how many people get their coverage denied even if they can afford it? Almost anybody that is sick gets denied their coverage because the consumer based insurance system is essentially made only to profit those already rich. Millions of sick americans get denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing condition. The number is about 50 to 119 million people. Is this your idea of a system to support?

As to your last point...I will agree to disagree, we have fundamentally different opinions on this subject. I feel that not only is that not the case, but that most people DON'T deserve to be healthy. If you aren't putting something back into the market, you are worthless to society; me saying the disabled deserve healthcare is me meeting you halfway, because honestly, the best system nature has to offer is survival of those who survive (survival of the fittest isn't really a good way to say it, since that does not factor in luck, which is a major variable in all aspects of life whether we want it to be or not). If I were crippled in some way an hour from now I would still say this, but then, I've never been one to care for my own wellbeing, anyway. Call me suicidal by negligence, if you wish. People, creatures, living organisms...none of these groups are equal, within themselves or with the other groups alike.

Wow. Really? How can one value money more than human life?

[Flonne]

Wow. Really? How can one value money more than human life?

No, money is not more valuable than any human. Just as I said before, not every person is equal. Am I saying that something with trade value is worth more than some human lives? Absolutely.

We are in the beginnings of an overpopulation problem, anyway. Do you know what humans do when any other animal in the entire world overpopulates? I'm not even suggesting that take place, just let nature run its course for a while and stop intervening with the livelihood of those who are just holding society back to begin with. Will some that don't deserve it get screwed along the way? Sure, but sacrifices are made in every decision that will ever be made....that is worded awkwardly, but you get the general idea.

[Locked]

No, money is not more valuable than any human. Just as I said before, not every person is equal. Am I saying that something with trade value is worth more than some human lives? Absolutely.

We are in the beginnings of an overpopulation problem, anyway. Do you know what humans do when any other animal in the entire world overpopulates? I'm not even suggesting that take place, just let nature run its course for a while and stop intervening with the livelihood of those who are just holding society back to begin with. Will some that don't deserve it get screwed along the way? Sure, but sacrifices are made in every decision that will ever be made....that is worded awkwardly, but you get the general idea.

Your first sentence is contradictory. Just so you know. You state that money is not more valuable than any human, yet then say that something with trade value is worth more than some human beings. Not that I agree or anything, since I find that train of thought completely disgusting and sickening.

Japan has an overpopulation problem, well it used to at least not sure if it still does. Though the birth rate in there started decreasing rapidly and I'm willing to bet it still does. People in Japan work a lot so they tend to not petty themselves with children or anything. This tends to increase the elderly population and cause a huge age gap in the population. This system however doesn't work very well as it diminishes the work force in the future and has more long term negative effects. While I'm not sure where you're getting your overpopulation statement from, the United States isn't close to the degree of overpopulation that Japan, India, or China have or had or do I know what this has to do with health insurance. Health insurance doesn't declare everyone healthy, it just allows people to not have a troubled financial situation to be treated.

[Devil]

No, money is not more valuable than any human. Just as I said before, not every person is equal. Am I saying that something with trade value is worth more than some human lives? Absolutely.

We are in the beginnings of an overpopulation problem, anyway. Do you know what humans do when any other animal in the entire world overpopulates? I'm not even suggesting that take place, just let nature run its course for a while and stop intervening with the livelihood of those who are just holding society back to begin with. Will some that don't deserve it get screwed along the way? Sure, but sacrifices are made in every decision that will ever be made....that is worded awkwardly, but you get the general idea.

Ever thought about what this will do to society? Ever thought what "just let nature run its course" will do to crime rates when it comes to getting healthcare?

People in the end will do -anything- to survive or letting their children survive. You should watch the movie "John Q" some day. ;)

[Flonne]

It's not contradictory, money of course counts as an item with trade value; I suppose to clarify, I could have said "money is not worth more than EVERY individual human". The US is part of the world, and the world is in the beginnings of overpopulation. Thus, so are we. If nothing is done to curb things before it's too late, far more people will die from starvation, disease, and riots in a few decades at most. In 1987 when I was born, we were at 5 billion people worldwide. We are now at nearly 7 billion. That is a staggeringly high level of expansion. That's more frightening to me than any other thing I've ever seen or heard.

Ever thought about what this will do to society? Ever thought what "just let nature run its course" will do to crime rates when it comes to getting healthcare?

People in the end will do -anything- to survive or letting their children survive. You should watch the movie "John Q" some day. ;)

Hate to tell you, but that's going to be happening regardless of the decision, this is more of a delay on the inevitable. Only, if this occurs, it will be 1000 times worse when it finally hits. Not only will nobody have healthcare, nobody will have ANYTHING, we are already so broke as a country that the numbers literally look like some sick joke.

What it all comes down to is, no matter what happens, people are going to pineapple things up for other people, because that is human nature.

[Stereo]

What does that have to do with anything...? If you are going to go that route, there will NEVER, EVER be a shortage of expendable bodies. Even if ten people took all of the world's wealth and somehow took the concept of trade/barter, everyone would still not die. Hundreds of thousands of people would still be drifting the planet aimlessly a decade later. If each of those 10 people had 5 capable slaves, they would still easily be able to live a life of luxury for the remainder of their lives. Trying to "topple the pyramid by removing the bottom" will not work when they own the entire pyramid, all of the people that made it, all of the resources used in the process of making said pyramid, and all of the land that the pyramids are located on.

Ok, I'll break it down further.
The rich depend on the poor's existence - without the slaves, the pyramids wouldn't exist. One rich person, expending personal effort, cannot build a pyramid. So to claim that the rich person is, all on their own, the only one who built the pyramid - it's delusional. They may be the reason it exists, but their personal effort isn't sufficient to create it. They need quarriers, labourers, farmers, etc. - a whole ecosystem funneling into the production of pyramids.

I don't care if I made 200K a year or 200M a day, if I don't feel like giving it away, it belongs to me.

In the same way, that money is only yours in the sense you've got your name on it. Much like the pyramid, it only exists because of countless slaves. Now, in a fair, or possibly ideal world, the rich person would acknowledge this, and compensate the workers fairly. But, now that they've got their pyramid of money - they decide to defect on their social contracts, and withdraw from supporting the workers, much like you have. You know how easy it is. The government exists to prevent this defection - to ensure that workers continue to be compensated fairly their entire lives, and that the next generation has an adequate supply of healthy workers.

[ElderTree]

Ok, I'll break it down further.
The rich depend on the poor's existence - without the slaves, the pyramids wouldn't exist. One rich person, expending personal effort, cannot build a pyramid. So to claim that the rich person is, all on their own, the only one who built the pyramid - it's delusional. They may be the reason it exists, but their personal effort isn't sufficient to create it. They need quarriers, labourers, farmers, etc. - a whole ecosystem funneling into the production of pyramids.


In the same way, that money is only yours in the sense you've got your name on it. Much like the pyramid, it only exists because of countless slaves. Now, in a fair, or possibly ideal world, the rich person would acknowledge this, and compensate the workers fairly. But, now that they've got their pyramid of money - they decide to defect on their social contracts, and withdraw from supporting the workers, much like you have. You know how easy it is. The government exists to prevent this defection - to ensure that workers continue to be compensated fairly their entire lives, and that the next generation has an adequate supply of healthy workers.

wtp does slavery have to do with this? People being forced to do something against their will is not equal to being poor.

[The Great One]

wtp does slavery have to do with this? People being forced to do something against their will is not equal to being poor.

It was an example the you need the workers to build anything IT really doesn't matter how much money one person has he can't build or make whatever it is by himself. Perhaps slaves was a bad example but it shouldn't have been too hard to find out what he was getting across.

[Flonne]

In the same way, that money is only yours in the sense you've got your name on it. Much like the pyramid, it only exists because of countless slaves.

So, money belongs to everyone? No thanks, I live in America, not Sweden.

[Stereo]

wtp does slavery have to do with this? People being forced to do something against their will is not equal to being poor.

It kinda does, have you been poor. You're forced to do lots of things or die.

I thought America was founded because people didn't like a rich aristocracy who abused them, I guess what they really wanted was to build their own.

[Flonne]

I guess what they really wanted was to build their own.

I completely agree, and universal healthcare is just another step in that direction. The main goal of a benevolent dictatorship is to neuter the citizens and make them as dependent upon the government as possible. Some may find that sort of thing a positive, but I prefer to actually control the direction my life goes, rather than be led from field to field like a grazing domesticated animal.

[Alley]

So much ignorance in one thread! I don't even know where to start..

[Devil]

I completely agree, and universal healthcare is just another step in that direction. The main goal of a benevolent dictatorship is to neuter the citizens and make them as dependent upon the government as possible. Some may find that sort of thing a positive, but I prefer to actually control the direction my life goes, rather than be led from field to field like a grazing domesticated animal.

I guess you don't know anyone in your family or have any relatives that got hit by some serious disease or were in some kind of heavy accident making them (partially) disabled for the rest of their life.

Having the idea that you will always have control of the direction your life goes is quite naive...