Socialism is NOT a bad thing

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Who cares if a hospital makes a profit or simply breaks even? The employees do not care, they only care that they get paid for their labor. The only people that care if a hospital makes a profit are its investors.

I tend to think exactly....the investors would. If the investors arent making profits, why would they invest? If they dont invest, nobody gets a hospital do they.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Even the health insurance industry doesn't need to make a profit. The entire insurance industry should be non-profit. Hell, imagine if WE formed our own NOT FOR PROFIT health insurance company, do you think our policy rates would be cheaper?

You really dont know how things work at all do you?

How can an insurance company make no profits? What. They charge they're members only exactly what they know they're going to pay out? or is it the other way? They pay out only what you pay to them....either case it would end in a downward spiral of the level of care. period.

The whole term non-profit is silly, IMO. If nobody makes any money from the industry how would it pay the employees needed to sustain the industry itself????

Someone has to pay for healthcare, and im my mind, it should be everyone.
Is that so wrong? One for all and all for one?

Originally posted by WTFover
Sure, with "your own" insurance company, you could make the rates as low as you'd like. Now, being able to pay claims and staying in business, without profits, is another thing, entirely. The word impossible come to mind.

What are you talking about? Hum?

I'm talking about BREAKING EVEN .. I'm talking about charging what it COSTS and leaving out the profit margin for all the owners. A sort of health insurance co-op. I'm NOT talking about under-charging so that the business ends up broke .. just talking about NOT adding in a profit margin into the policy price. Profit is not something a business spends, it's what is left over after all is said and done and is given to the investors, the owners.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Who cares if a hospital makes a profit or simply breaks even? The employees do not care, they only care that they get paid for their labor. The only people that care if a hospital makes a profit are its investors.

Yeh and if the investors make no money, its not exactly a worthwhile investment is it...and once again the levels of pay would drop, so why on earth would anyone with a brain train themselves for years to get into this lowly paid field of work, when they get paid less than even a small time business owner?

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Even the health insurance industry doesn't need to make a profit. The entire insurance industry should be non-profit. Hell, imagine if WE formed our own NOT FOR PROFIT health insurance company, do you think our policy rates would be cheaper?

If you started your own non-profit insurance company, how would you fund it????? would you only pay out when someone freely contributes towards the fund?? or maybe only ask for funds when somebody makes a claim.....either way its a ridiculous notion.

This is all very short-term thinking on your behalf. Instead of "commie" bashing, why dont you think of something worth saying that contributes to the solution in the long term?

Short term thinking is ignorance, and must not be toted as wisdom.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by OLDMATE]

reply to post by Divinorumus


Well, first of all, insurance companies can not operate on premiums, alone. Investors are a necessity. I'm thinking you won't have said investors knocking down your door, without profits.

Well, using your logic, then we should shut down the federal government .. or insist they add a 46% markup to your next tax bill, ha. The US government has been a corporation since 1871. Maybe that's why that corporation is near bankruptcy, because they should have been making a profit on all of its citizens.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Well, using your logic, then we should shut down the federal government .. or insist they add a 46% markup to your next tax bill, ha. The US government has been a corporation since 1871. Maybe that's why that corporation is near bankruptcy, because they should have been making a profit on all of its citizens.

How does anyones logic show this?

oh, and about that 46% mark up to cover YOUR bills. All anyone's trying to ask is whats the difference between paying tax money that goes to things like the military and a plethora of other much more heinous things, like bailing out your rich investment bankers. Whats the difference between paying THOSE "mandatory" taxes and ones which go towards providing better health for your countrymen????

Once again ill ask, why do you hate your countrymen so much that you can't even begin to look favourably upon paying an extremely small amount towards better healthcare for all????

[edit on 30-3-2010 by OLDMATE]

reply to post by OLDMATE


Do the sheep that follow the progressive cause see the the real truth? I don't think so I think they see what has been given to them to see. Think about it they make the big bad greedy business owners seem so evil don't they.

But in reality it is them they just want it all including the little guys. How do you do this you ask easy make the people think they are evil and then take control and you win twice first you are the hero and second you now have complete control.


It has nothing to do with the sick it has to do with control. They needed to do this now because we have a large segment of old people that need care the money is gone so they needed to get control to weed them out as cheap as possible.


This is the truth.

Originally posted by OLDMATE
Once again ill ask, why do you hate your countrymen so much that you can't even begin to look favourably upon paying an extremely small amount towards better healthcare for all????

Because some think they can put a law (and ultimately a gun) to our heads and force us to give to them what THEY think I should contribute. Don't you see, that's no different than being held up by a common thief in the streets. Remember, it's not charity if you force me and threaten me to hand over part of my labor/income to another, that is clearly without a doubt an enslavement and thief, and THAT is what I oppose. This health reform is not a tax on services I use, like roads, fire department, etc. This health reform is a theft, an income redistribution, like welfare is.

Tell me, why can't YOU make socialism voluntary, hum? Why do you need me? If you need my mandatory participation, then I'm sorry to tell you this but you've already failed, because like I said before, I will not comply, and I will not bow to a thief, or a socialist! Stay away from me and leave me out of this immoral mess.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Divinorumus]

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Do the sheep that follow the progressive cause see the the real truth? I don't think so I think they see what has been given to them to see. Think about it they make the big bad greedy business owners seem so evil don't they.

But in reality it is them they just want it all including the little guys. How do you do this you ask easy make the people think they are evil and then take control and you win twice first you are the hero and second you now have complete control.


It has nothing to do with the sick it has to do with control. They needed to do this now because we have a large segment of old people that need care the money is gone so they needed to get control to weed them out as cheap as possible.

First of all whose demonising the business owners? All i was saying is that if doctors are paid less than less painstaking positions, why would anyone become a doctor in the first place?

It has everything to do with the sick. Governments already control us. ANY type of government; republican, democratic or socialist, has control over the population to some extent.....otherwise it would be pointless to even HAVE a government.

And your arguements about the government needing to take over healthcare now, "because we have a large segment of old people that need care" is just plain stupidity. Im sorry but why in the hell would a government wait till there is a surplus of people waiting in line for healthcare to introduce this scheme? thats just nonsense.

Originally posted by Divinorumus

Because some think they can put a law (and ultimately a gun) to our heads and force us to give to them what THEY think I should contribute.

Ahhh but do they not already force you to pay taxes (ultimately with a gun to your head) for other things?

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Don't you see, that's no different than being held up by a common thief in the streets. Remember, it's not charity if you force me and threaten me to hand over part of my labor/income to another, that is clearly without a doubt an enslavement and thief, and THAT is what I oppose.

Who said the word charity? its called duty.....obviously something you dont beleive in.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
This health reform is not a tax on services I use, like roads, fire department, etc.

No, its a tax on services everybody hopes to never have to use. But a service nontheless.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Tell me, why can't YOU make socialism voluntary, hum? Why do you need me?

Democratic socialism IS voluntary....we in Australia worked towards this goal for many long hard years, and here you are telling us we "enslaved" our country.....and to answer your question. I don't need you. But you know who does??? The hundred of thousands of sick and starving people on the streets of your country.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
immoral mess.

Whose morals are they breaking?......equality, helping the less fortunate and not being self-centred are some morals of mine....think about that next time you decide to call someone else immoral

[edit on 30-3-2010 by OLDMATE]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

The man shoving words into my mouth and creating straw men left and right is accusing me of sophistry? Hilarious.

What words precisely have I shoved into your mouth, and what are the straw man arguments I am making?

I am not ashamed at all of being a socialist. As such I have no need for nefarious twisting of my ideology. I will come right out and say it:

No need for nefarious twisting? Let's examine your own words in just your last post:

Yes, progressive taxation takes a higher percentage of income from the wealthier than it does the poorer. With no begrudging or shame I support this form of taxation. I believe that those making more can afford to pay more so as to better aid their fellow citizen. I believe that taxes should be mandatory for those whom generate income and partake in any benefit that the government bestows.

Now compare that to this statement of yours:

I think the real difference here between us is that I do not believe the Invisible Hand works uniformly throughout an economic structure, so government acts to regulate and balance industry when it becomes in the public interest to do so.

Here you are twisting your ideology to appear to be some sort of uniform equality of law while advocating a higher tax on people of wealth than those who don't have wealth. This decided lack of uniformity is justified by words such as "balance" and "public interest", but do not change the lack of uniformity what so ever. The form of economics you are advocating no more works uniformly than does capitalism, and the real difference between what you are advocating and I am advocating is that in the system you advocate the producers are punished and those who do not produce are rewarded, where in the economic system I advocate, only production is rewarded. The invisible hand you reference is a Smithonian term used to describe the outcome of rational self interest acting freely in an an open market.

In a free and unregulated market no person, regardless of their status need apply for permission to do business, and can build that business according to their own ability and effort. In the system you advocate these same people would...well, let's not risk shoving words in your mouth and simply use your words:

I never claimed anything otherwise. Being a socialist though and not a Communist, I still believe in a private market going hand in hand with government. National versus private nature for an industry (or even a given company) must be done on a case by case basis.

Would I be shoving words in your mouth if I were to interpret this above statement to mean that private business would operate under the authority of the state that grants a person permission to do business?

Let us take a look at another one of your statements:

I trust government to regulate business some of the time. I do not trust businesses or the markets to regulate themselves all of the time.

Do you think, I wonder, that government can regulate business all of the time? Is it possible that businesses can regulate themselves some of the time? Talk about twisting words. You have said nothing of substance with this statement but have certainly twisted words. Nefariously so or not, I can not know, but clearly you are twisting words with this statement.

Now consider this statement of yours:

You do not need to put words in my mouth, such as bringing up a major point (individuality, competition, capitalism) and accuse me of plotting against it when I did not even bring it up until after your accusation.

Ironically followed by this statement:

You also do not need to make blanket false statements such as "there is no SCOTUS ruling that has overturned the long held belief that the individual has the right to self determination" which is just absolute nonsense and you know it. If the Supreme Court held that every individual had the right to pure self-determination no one would ever be convicted of breaking any law because the enforcement of punishment is an external compulsory.

You claim that my statement that there is no SCOTUS ruling that has overturned the long held belief that the individual has the right to self determination is "absolute nonsense" and what's worse you, who are accusing me of putting words into your mouth, insist "(I) know it". Instead of supplying any actual SCOTUS ruling to support your assertions, instead you attempt to dismiss my statement by, and here I believe you are being disingenuous, first coining a phrase, that being "pure self determination", then arguing that if "pure self determination" were acknowledged as a common law right no once could ever be convicted of breaking any law.

Never mind that the infamous, or famous depending upon ones view, ruling of Roe v. Wade held that the right to privacy, a long held tenet of self determination, was indeed a right, several SCOTUS rulings since 1973 have affirmed the right to self determination as well.

Consider Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), where the right to self determination is not only upheld, but also that the state had a compelling interest in protecting the life of one not competently able to do so against the self determination of others, if the actions of others means certain harm to the one the state has found themselves compelled to protect. This SCOTUS ruling upheld the right of person to refuse medical assistance even if that assistance was merely nutrition and hydration, and held that people have the right to make their own decisions regarding what medical assistance they will accept.

In fairness and in the spirit of understanding truth, The SCOTUS is not exactly consistent in their rulings regarding the right to self determination, and have upheld the states rights to impose sodomy laws, which I care not to make any opinions one way or the other on the efficacy of sodomy laws, legally speaking any state sanctions of "civil unions" or licensed marriages between homosexual men, pretty much assures a tacit tolerance of sodomy, and will find themselves faced with either repealing the sodomy laws they have on the books, or enforce them and arrest gay married men for acts of sodomy.

Since the SCOTUS has upheld the right of the state to enforce sodomy laws, if they were to uphold certain state constitutional amendments declaring gay marriage illegal, they certainly have precedence to do so. The SCOTUS has wisely stayed out of the gay marriage issue as it is a states right issue and they don't have the proper jurisdiction to hear arguments regarding it. That said, if and/or when gay marriage is accepted in any state, any sodomy laws on the books will merit review. Further, if the SCOUTUS were to uphold the recent legislation commonly known as "health care reform", as Constitutional, in doing so, they would be overturning a bevy of Case Law holdings, including the Cruzan ruling. If they strike the recent legislation down as unconstitutional it is not unreasonable to imagine that the Cruzan Case will be cited as one precedent.

The bigger point I am making is that SCOTUS is no more the final word on truth than you and I are, and the evidence of that lies in the fact that they do overturn their own decisions, and the recent Citizens United Case is just one example of them doing so. Both the federal and state governments will repeal laws, which serves as evidence that a statute is not in and of itself a law, but merely evidence of law, and more often than not, statutes repealed are done so because they lacked the force of law.

While The SCOTUS and lower courts remain inconsistent in their rulings regarding the right to self determination, when they do rule a person does have this right, they often rely upon the Due Process of Law Clause to support their decision, and since neither the Constitution nor any Amendment defines what Due Process of Law is, it is understood that the common law principles by which the Constitution for the United States of America is undeniably relies upon, is what is meant by Due Process of Law.
Their inconsistencies, however, should not be interpreted to mean they have gone back and forth continually reversing themselves in regards to the right to self determination. The inconsistencies arise when The SCOTUS upholds a states right to legislate its laws how they see fit.

Those rulings that uphold a states right to legislate laws how they see fit, are determined by the 10th Amendment, which says where the Constitution is silent on the matter, and no specific authority has been granted the authority to speak on the matter, then the issue is deferred to the states and the people respectively. There is no federal law protecting the right to sodomy, nor prohibiting the states from enacting laws prohibiting sodomy, and while it may or may not be a right that should or should not be recognized as one of the rights not enumerated specifically referred to in the 9th Amendment, there are no federal laws prohibiting sodomy so it is a non issue for The SCOTUS. Thus, when The Supreme Court upholds a states right to enforce sodomy laws, they are not overturning any previous rulings that upheld the right to self determination, and are not ruling that self determination is not a right. They are ruling that certain rights not enumerated in the Constitution are a states issue and not a federal one.

As is usually the case when mired in the citation of case law, I have run out of space. Cont...

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Continuing...

Let me being this post by re-quoting what I just quoted in the above post:

You also do not need to make blanket false statements such as "there is no SCOTUS ruling that has overturned the long held belief that the individual has the right to self determination" which is just absolute nonsense and you know it. If the Supreme Court held that every individual had the right to pure self-determination no one would ever be convicted of breaking any law because the enforcement of punishment is an external compulsory.

As has been demonstrated in the previous post, my assertion that The SCOTUS has not overturned the long held belief that the individual has the right to self determination is not a "blanket false statement", nor is it "nonsense", it is in fact, a fact of law in The United States of America, and your unsupported claims that is is a false statement and nonsense are nothing more than you opinion more formulated out of ignorance than knowledge. Further, you attempt to confuse the issue by relying upon the phrase "pure self determination" as if that actually means something. The law makes no distinction between "pure self determination" and self determination.

Your obfuscating with terms such as "pure" continues when you reason that if the right to self determination were upheld as law, that this would somehow render all other laws unenforceable. It is richly ironic that you take no more than a dozen and a half words from the point you dismiss my assertion as nonsense, you spew actual nonsense. It is utter nonsense that laws would be rendered unenforceable when the right to self determination is upheld. Indeed, if the right to self determination is being upheld, it is being upheld on the belief of a natural right to autonomy, and just as sure as there are natural rights, there are laws that enforce the protection of those rights.

Laws, however, can not be expected to protect anyone, and are there to describe the nature of a thing, and in terms of rights, the laws of nature dictate that certain unalienable rights are self evident. Laws will not prevent an abrogation or derogation of a right, and can only serve as a guide for how to put justice back in once it is absent. This is how law works, in the negative sense, that it can not produce justice, but can only act in an absence of justice in an attempt to redress grievances.

Since your above quote remains woefully ambiguous by what is meant when you say: "If the Supreme Court held that every individual had the right to pure self-determination no one would ever be convicted of breaking any law because the enforcement of punishment is an external compulsory.", one can only presume or assume what laws you are referring to. If by law you mean those that punish murder, rape, fraud, extortion, coercion, assault and battery and other crimes that are clear abrogations and derogation's of another persons rights, these laws are enforceable based upon the right to self determination and do not contradict that.

First of all, let's clear up your awkwardly written remark about external compulsion. There is a legal definition to the word compulsion which states:

COMPULSION

The forcible inducement to an act. Compulsion may be lawful or unlawful. 1. When a man is compelled by lawful authority to do that which be ought to do, that compulsion does not affect the validity of the act; as for example, when a court of competent jurisdiction compels a party to execute a deed under the pain of attachment for contempt, the grantor cannot object to it on the ground of compulsion. 2. But if the court compelled a party to do an act forbidden by law, or not having jurisdiction over the parties or the subject-matter, the act done by such compulsion would be void.

Compulsion is never presumed.

www.lectlaw.com...

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Compulsion is never presumed. These are very important words when understanding the fundamental differences between the various versions of socialism and capitalism. If socialism is to function due to state enforcement of such economic policies, then compulsion must be presumed. Conversely, in a capitalist society, no one is compelled to play by the rules and can opt out if they so choose. This is a fundamental and astonishingly glaring difference between the two economic systems.

If compulsion is legally defined as never being presumed, then we must examine carefully your nonsensical assertion that no laws could be enforced if this were true. It is not true that no laws could be enforced under such a principle, only the laws that uphold the principles of self determination are enforceable. Certainly legislation disregarding the right to self determination become unenforceable, but not so those that uphold the right to self determination. Thus, the recent legislation passed by Congress in the guise of "health care reform" becomes an unenforceable law, whereas murder, rape, fraud, etc., remain enforceable precisely because they are upholding the right to self determination.

While a person who has murdered another may find his right to self determination greatly impeded by incarceration due the consequences of his own self determined act of murder, and rightly so, since that murder more than greatly impeded the right to self determination for the victim and it is the victims right to self determination that is being upheld. Indeed, without the concept of self determination, how can we possibly explain what is wrong with murder, rape, coercion, extortion, fraud and any other form of unlawful compulsion.

It matters not whether the compulsion is external or not, as people have long battled their own internal compulsions as well. The natural proclivity towards resisting compulsion can be evidenced in how the word is used within the fields psychiatry and psychology, where compulsion is not at all viewed as a good thing, and often times the word disorder follows. Nor is compulsion viewed as necessarily a good thing within the law, hence when defining it, it is stated; compulsion is never presumed.

Compulsion is never presumed because it is excepted under common law, as well as being supported by a bevy of American jurisprudence, that people are free to act with self determination up until the point they harm another persons right to determine their own fate. It is known as the harm principle and it is inherent in self determination itself. A right is a right in as much as it causes no undue harm to another. The distinction of justifiable harm is made as the right to self defense is not only another tenet of self determination, it is also a long held common law belief. Outside of self defense, there is no right to cause another person harm.

If a state or government is constitutionally mandated to establish justice, then in the absence of justice it must find a way to put justice back in. If a person murders another, the state is now authorized to enforce the laws written which seek to punish and imprison the murderer. That authorization is legal because it upholds the right to self determination, and only offers imprisonment as a remedy attempting to place justice back in, and any self determination denied a convicted murderer, is a consequence of the murder itself, a criminal act that deprived another the right to self determination and the prison sentence mandated is compulsory as a measure of remedy and future protection of others right to self determination, given this person has shown a willingness to deprive people of that right.

Citizens in the United States and the United Kingdom are not sovereign nations unto themselves.

Here is yet another example of the twisting you claim to be innocent of doing. First, there is a fundamental difference between a citizen and an individual, and a citizen is one by virtue of some form of legal residency, and individuals need not be citizens in order to have rights. Further, individuals are no more nations, (sovereign or otherwise), than are citizens, but are sovereign unto themselves, and that sovereignty is evidenced, indeed protected by Constitution in The United States of America, with the right of the individual to move freely from state to state. There is an inherent sovereignty in an individual that comes from the ability to move from one sovereign state to another without any compulsion to prevent such freedom.

A person need not be a nation in order to have a right to self determination or be recognized as a sovereign being entitled to self government as long as they have not caused any justifiable harm to others. A person is wholly capable of being sovereign and social at the same time, just as nations and states are capable of the same thing. The U.N. is filled with sovereign nations who have not, at least not yet, surrendered sovereignty to that organization in order to belong to it. Just as surely as those sovereign nations can come together as an organization, so too can an individual as a sovereign, can come together as an organization with other sovereign individuals.

I am running out of space again and would like to close this post and rebuttal by clarifying that your citation of Coleman v. CIR of which you quote:

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.

Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 791 F2d 68 U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th cir. (1986)

This ruling from a lower court, not SCOTUS, regarding the ludicrous legal claims made in regards to taxation, in no way held that the right to self determination is not a right.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by OLDMATE


You can understand why government would want to take over health care because of a huge segment of population growing old. Think about it. This is one is a no brain er.


Hmm lets see I know that the system can not handle all of the old in its current forum. The current forum keeps them alive for as long as it can and doesn't ration care they get everything under the sun.

Now the government controls it and they can ration care in a time of need wink wink. And also they care so much about the right for you to be able to die. I seriously have to wonder what is the in the water you are drinking.

Originally posted by OLDMATE
Whose morals are they breaking?......equality, helping the less fortunate and not being self-centred are some morals of mine....think about that next time you decide to call someone else immoral

Didn't you read what I've been saying? I never said anything against help the less fortunate. Go ahead, you can help as many as you care to help, it's no skin off my back.

So again, what I take issue with is someone else thinking my purpose here on Earth is to serve them and fulfill their desires in life. I'm sure there are a lot of people that probably need help that I could provide which I couldn't care any less for .. and why? Because "I" will decide who I should care about, who I should help, and how much I should help. My life is mine, not yours, and not anyone else's to make these kinds of decisions for. And I do not care to help the loose morals breeders and their illegitimate puppies, let them figure out whose the daddies are and force them to help their own. I couldn't care any less about the fat lazy dude that eats all the wrong things and never exercises, because why should I care about their health if they don't. Those I want to help would be my own children, my own grandchildren, my own family and friends, and not who YOU or anyone else may decide I should help instead.

It's that simple, so please, don't make that mistake about me again. I'm not against helping .. helping those I would care to help. I'm merely against anyone making those decisions for me and deciding who should receive my help and charity!!! That is MY decision to make and nobody else's, period.

Again, MANDATORY socialism is immoral and there's no way to wiggle out of that one and that's my issue with socialism.

BTW, the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, so this socialism scheme is unconstitutional in the USA right now anyhow.

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

You can understand why government would want to take over health care because of a huge segment of population growing old. Think about it. This is one is a no brain er.

Hmm lets see I know that the system can not handle all of the old in its current forum. The current forum keeps them alive for as long as it can and doesn't ration care they get everything under the sun.

Now the government controls it and they can ration care in a time of need wink wink. And also they care so much about the right for you to be able to die. I seriously have to wonder what is the in the water you are drinking.

But let me put this to you. What would be the benifit to the government by controllong a sector that becomes unprofitable as soon as this eventuates.

Also in our society we also have a privitised sector....so no they WOULDN'T have complete controll of it anyway.

...one more thing, its not water.

Its juice

reply to post by ShadeWolf

Socialism is NOT a bad thing

It is, of course, entirely dependent on one's taste for politics.

There are no perfect systems, but the one that supports open markets, free expression and allows people to live as they choose to, is probably the better of the various evils.

Socialism is, of itself, neither good or bad. Just like capitalism, it all depends on how it is applied by both government and society. You simply cannot regulate human behavior by legislative decree. Greed and sloth are human corruptions that are pervasive in all forms of endeavor.

To say that socialism is either good or bad or better than capitalism, is a wholly subsidized viewpoint of the individual. In point of fact, it is neither true or untrue because by itself, a form of government is only as good as those who are in the cockpit.

...

I just skimmed through the last few posts, and there's a big miscontention of profitability.

I live in Tennessee, the Pilot state for Gov't insurance. Which, was started by Hillary Clinton during the Clinton Era.

You are mistaken if you believe there's no room for profit. As, they will scam and scheme to 'clear the wire', as they say.

When the state formed its health program, everyone suddenly had a plethora of problems. Always, a matter of life and death. Most in the hospitals had to have special training for proper billing, which took precedence; all the while those not really needing treatment were 'hearded', and unfortunately those in need were often slotted in the background.

This is the way to maintain a high profit margin, unnecessary treatment forms. You just find your pill-seekers, hypochondriacs, and people with 'grey-zone', undefinable treatment forms, and that's about it. Mucho Grande profit, as there known for stating around here.

Originally posted by Divinorumus

Again, MANDATORY socialism is immoral and there's no way to wiggle out of that one and that's my issue with socialism.

OK, I see where your coming from.

But all I was, and still am, wondering is how you view paying money to the government to supply the army with guns, any better than paying money to the government to supply the less fortunate with healthcare? when either way its "mandatory".

Originally posted by OLDMATE
But all I was, and still am, wondering is how you view paying money to the government to supply the army with guns, any better than paying money to the government to supply the less fortunate with healthcare? when either way its "mandatory".

THAT is not a redistribution of wealth, that is a service that is being provided which I would gladly help pay for, if they would also stop acting immoral by dropping bombs on innocent baby and women heads (my conscience won't allow be to be part of that too, I just can't bring myself to funding a bunch of baby killers to insure we have cheap fuel for our environmentally damaging automobiles).

This health care reform is not a reform, it's a theft and redistribution of our compensation for OUR labor, and that is called involuntary servitude, which is illegal.

I tell you what, I'll get behind this socialist heath care thing if we 1) make it mandatory that everyone must run 6 miles every morning, 2) we all eat only healthy food, and never eat more fat/calories than you expect to burn off each day, and we shut down all those nasty fast food joints, and 3) we make alcohol and cigarettes illegal. You best accept this deal quick before I think of another necessary requirement, ha ... .. oh, too late, ha, I thought of another: 4) and you must also make getting an STD illegal too, that kind of irresponsible personal behavior is totally uncalled for and I won't be paying to help anyone that was THAT stupid and careless about their health (I mean, why fix someone up that apparently doesn't give a damn about their health?).

reply to post by Subjective Truth


You answered your own question.

Hmm lets see I know that the system can not handle all of the old in its current forum.

This is why the system needed overhauling. Nobody wants to kill you before your time (except the insurance companies who want to deny your coverage!) Exactly why it was VITAL for the government to step in and offer the people some protection.

If you were dying of thirst and your government offered you water I am sure you would still die - since you would be convinced it is POISON coming from the government and refuse to drink.

There is no one actively trying to kill you or bring about your early demise.
Unless you are an unarmed Democrat in this political environment today you are pretty safe.

There ARE those (one political party) to whom you are little more than an expendable work unit. They place impossible limitations and barriers to the success you can achieve. They funnel you into one of two paths... You either grow up to be a soldier or an unskilled worker and you had better be God-damn happy about it. You are an American for Chris-sakes! This should be enough.

Well it is not enough for me.

There are those who care not one whit about your life or your health or your education. They will keep you a low grade employee and will work you to death feeding you crumbs until you die.
You will gobble up the crumbs they toss and because it is not the hand of a government stroking your tired old bones you will think that you are free....because they are telling you, you are free.





[edit on 30-3-2010 by rusethorcain]