Why I believe the US doesn't have free health care and free higher education...

reply to post by charles1952


Not difficult at all. I don't see Capitalism mentioned once. What you are doing is like arguing America is a Christian nation (it's not) even though there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the Constitution, but arguing that it is by invoking the mention of rights being "endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.

I want to know why in the heck prison inmates get "free" (paid for with my tax dollars) internet but I have to pay $50.00 a month for it. And no, the US government doesn't have FREE health care or FREE higher education! Neither does any other country! SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE is paying for it! It might not be the recipient of the care or education but someone IS paying for it. Why don't people get that? Very little is free and the list is getting smaller day by day. Why would ANYONE think that stuff is free?????

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

Dear CoolerAbdullah786,

You are completely correct that the word "Capitalism" is not in the Constittution. Is your conclusion that Capitalism is unconstitutional? Islam is not in the Constitution, so . . .

What economic system do you think the Founders were thinking of that guaranteed commerce and private ownership of property? Remember that it has to be a system relatively well known before 1800 and which was not very strange and foreign to the American way of thinking at the time.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Gridrebel


1. Again, I'd rather have my taxes go to health care and education than war and prisons
2. Who cares if prisoners get internet access "on your dime." See, when I see people say stuff like that, it says to me they are either greedy or jealous that someone is getting "free" access to something. Don't like paying for your internet, then stop paying for internet. Or go to jail and you can have free access to internet, healthcare, room and board, meals, gym membership, laundry, etc. I mean since you guys make it sound so wonderful and awesome to be in jail and have all of this stuff "for free."

True story, I knew a guy who constantly complained about people on welfare. I mean literally to the point where I said to him, dude you seriously sound jealous. It later came to light that he had gotten disabled on a job one time, and according to him, he filed for welfare but was denied it because he previously made too much money. Now I don't fully buy his story, but if it is 100% true then it proves my point. He wasn't opposed to welfare because his taxes were providing a service for someone. He was opposed to it because he was jealous that he couldn't get it!

Originally posted by charles1952

You are completely correct that the word "Capitalism" is not in the Constittution. Is your conclusion that Capitalism is unconstitutional?

I am not making any conclusion. I'm pointing out how people yell about things being in the Constitution (or not being in it) and conveniently ignore when things that they believe in are not in it.

Islam is not in the Constitution, so . . .

You're right. Neither is Christianity, so....

But there is a freedom of religion in the Constitution so I guess Islam, as well as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, scientology, et al. are in the Constitution.

What economic system do you think the Founders were thinking of that guaranteed commerce and private ownership of property?

I have no idea. Your question does not make Capitalism constitutional. That's not the issue at hand. The issue was you claim certain things aren't in the Constitution ergo they are not Constitutional. Well, I merely observed that Capitalism isn't in the Constitution either. So, by your logic, it would then be unconstitutional.

Also, just so you know, because I'm sure you don't since most Right-wingers don't even know what Socialism is, in Socialism the people own everything.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


I'd rather my taxes not be wasted on frivolous crap. How about that? I'm not jealous. I'm pisssed! I don't like the waste of tax dollars and I don't think I should pay for someone who murdered their (insert victim here) to have internet access to communicate with (insert email contactee here). And my tax dollars already go to health care and education.

reply to post by zonetripper2065


The UK's healthcare system is rated higher in QUALITY than the US's, no matter "how long you have to wait."

reply to post by charles1952


No religion is mentioned in the constitution, or any founding documents for that matter. Freedom of religion, tacked on in the Bill of Rights, on the other hand is.

I agree completely with the OP's statements, and never really thought of it that way, although my favorite argument to employ against those against single-payer healthcare for all is that we should get rid of the VA, since it's the most socialist thing that the government runs.

reply to post by Gridrebel


OK. So then your reasoning doesn't fall into jealousy, it falls into the other category I mentioned of "greed." You don't think "your" money should go to benefit people via education or health care.

So all people in prison are murderers? Or you only object to murderers having internet access (which is false I'm pretty sure. I do believe not every inmate gets internet access, especially if they are violent offenders)?

What about car thieves? Or people in prison on a petty weed bust? Should they be allowed access to the internet?

Seems to me like you are a bit judgmental of people in prison as if you are better than them.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

Dear CoolerAbdullah786,

I hope I'm not irritating you with my persistence, but I don't want to give up on you just yet. Start over with your last post?

I'm pointing out how people yell about things being in the Constitution (or not being in it) and conveniently ignore when things that they believe in are not in it.

I believe the economic system known as Capitalism is encouraged and enforced in the Constitution, just as freedom of religion encourages the freedom to choose the religion you want. The Constitution's support for capitalism is the only conclusion that seems legitimate to me.

I believe it is the Constitutional economic system, you seem to believe it is not. (If that is not your position, please correct me.)

Also, just so you know, because I'm sure you don't since most Right-wingers don't

Ahhh, that's not nice. (It turns out that it is also not true. Unless you are referring to the fact that there are so many different schools of Socialist thought that very few people can keep up with them all.)

in Socialism the people own everything.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.

Ok, but that's why I believe Socialism is unconstitutional. Our Constitution doesn't allow for those things.

So, can we find common ground?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Anonymous404
So, if you're dead because you had to wait too long, that is still quality health care?????

reply to post by Gridrebel


Yes, because I care for others before myself, just like many of your religions teach you to...

2nd line.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by Gridrebel

 

OK. So then your reasoning doesn't fall into jealousy, it falls into the other category I mentioned of "greed." You don't think "your" money should go to benefit people via education or health care.

So all people in prison are murderers? Or you only object to murderers having internet access (which is false I'm pretty sure. I do believe not every inmate gets internet access, especially if they are violent offenders)?

What about car thieves? Or people in prison on a petty weed bust? Should they be allowed access to the internet?

Seems to me like you are a bit judgmental of people in prison as if you are better than them.

Greed for the money I earned that is taken away from me to support those who don't obey the laws that I do??? Give me a break. We all make choices. I could break the law but I choose not to do so. Besides, I have bills to pay, like my internet. doctor bills and my medicines!

Originally posted by charles1952

I hope I'm not irritating you with my persistence,

Not at all. Although this will be my last response until morning. It's late here.

Ahhh, that's not nice. (It turns out that it is also not true. Unless you are referring to the fact that there are so many different schools of Socialist thought that very few people can keep up with them all.)

My apologies if I came across like a jerk. As I said it's late

But what I said about Socialism is true. I am talking about Socialism in its purest form. Not Socialism-inspired ideologies.

Ok, but that's why I believe Socialism is unconstitutional. Our Constitution doesn't allow for those things.

But, again, there are a lot of things that the Constitution doesn't talk about. It's being silent on something doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional is my only point.

So, can we find common ground?

Possibly? I don't know, but I would imagine so. I'm sure we can't disagree on everything

On that note. I'm off to bed. Good night and peace be upon you

reply to post by Gridrebel


Now we can look at recidivism rates of countries with less strict/more humane prison systems where the goals therein are to rehabilitate instead of simply confine...hmmm...much lower.

But hey, this is a healthcare thread.

I take it you've not spent any time inside one of your jails.

reply to post by Anonymous404

Dear Anonymous404,

Allow me to disagree, even if only on a question of semantics. The Bill of Rights were demanded by the delegates before the Constitution proper was accepted. It was an integral part of the Constitution in the same way that if you mend a whole in your sock, you still have the same pair of socks. The founders most definitely saw it as one Constitution and the Courts treat it that way.

As for other founding documents, are you referring to anything besides the Declaration? Perhaps the Mayflower Compact, or The Federalist papers?

The Mayflower Compact may be our country's very start. It was signed in 1620. Here's part of it:

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

Like it?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I was definitely referring to those establishing America as a country, not those that made us subservient colonies of an empire across the ocean.

EDIT: And you can't trow in the Declaration, since it says Nature's God, not Abraham's, David's, or Jesus's.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by Gridrebel

 

Now we can look at recidivism rates of countries with less strict/more humane prison systems where the goals therein are to rehabilitate instead of simply confine...hmmm...much lower.

But hey, this is a healthcare thread.

I take it you've not spent any time inside one of your jails.

edit on 7/3/2012 by Anonymous404 because: (no reason given)

Are you kidding me??? Recidivism rates in less strict countries is very high, check your stats. That is why many states in the USA are initiating the "3 strikes and you're out " rule. Rehabilitate?????????????????? Where does that come into play? If anyone thinks prison is for rehabilitation they are an idiot. It is punishment, pure and simple. Get the bad guy off the streets.

On topic, the reason the USA doesn't have free health care and free education is because they are spending all their money paying for the prisoners to have free internet.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, in reference to the Mayflower Compact, I give you the Treaty of Tripoli

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

(Emphasis mine)

reply to post by Gridrebel


en.wikipedia.org...

thinkprogress.org...

www.publiceye.org... (Check page 2)

All of these, and many more, state that deterrence and rehabilitation work far better than the American system.

BUT AGAIN...Healthcare.

EDIT: And a map+chart for good measure.

www.nationmaster.com...&b_map=1

reply to post by Anonymous404

Dear Anonymous404,

Thanks for the response, but a question? If I can't refer to the Declaration, what founding documents did you have in mind when you said;

No religion is mentioned in the constitution, or any founding documents for that matter.

I mean, if you say I can't find a reference to watermelon in any of the founding documents, and there are no founding documents you'll let me look in, then I suppose I have to concede. (Not much of a debate, though.)

With respect,
Charles1952