Republican Conservative Anti-Human Agenda takes Hold

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Willtell
All this talk about health care being communist or socialist is absurd.

I imagine having a community police force or fire department paid by out taxes is communism.

Or when the gov intervenes and saves people in a flood or hurricane is communism

Or our bridges, tunnels you use is communism.

Just add universal health care TO THE MIX

Use your heads and stop parroting dogma

Or move to the woods and live on your own

Just when your log cabin burns down don't call the fire department

Or you get sick don't rely on GOVERNMENT 911 service

When you're robbed don't call the police

Get your own fire department, ARMY, 911 service, police department.

Your own bridges, tunnels and roads


edit on 20-9-2013 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

The main difference between communism and socialism is that communism is a totally planned economy and socialism attempts to retain some of the features of free trade. Both lead to totalitarianism (or jump directly into it).




posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


Is comparing the healthcare debate to any other service the only way you can argue the issues ?

I know it's an old ultra-Progressive trick, but *really* .....

it's getting to be old hat already.

...just leveling the short legs on this table...

The national healthcare insurance debate has absolutely zero to do with a police or fire department or a bridge or highway.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


The point is that there is a middle course were socialist type policies ( SOCIAL SECURITY/ UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE) are done in capitalist countries that are aware of moderation and don’t want to go too far into pure socialism.

If we have community, general taxed based things like bridges, streets, parks, police and fire etc… then we could have (because of the economic vagaries of the health care system) universal societal health care without crossing the line into socialism or communism.

We don’t, for example, need universal insurance for automobiles because the economic system for auto insurance is stable enough to keep it private. The healthcare system on the other hand is too economically unstable to be private, no one can afford it easily except the rich, that's why we need a government( by the people) to intervene.
Its that simple.

edit on 20-9-2013 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


The taxes used to create food stamps came from people who generated enough money to tax - that's why it's not a good idea to take out either half of the system.

Either way though, there is a rather sharp cut off between those who make money and those who don't, and often enough, people working the same amount of hours using the same amount of brainpower can have four to six figures separating their hourly wages.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


How the demons seethe, and gnash their teeth, when their plans are unraveling.

Ha.. freaking.. HA!



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


To repeat this to you:

We don’t, for example, need universal insurance for automobiles because the economic system for auto insurance is stable enough to keep it private. The healthcare system on the other hand is too economically unstable to be private, no one can afford it easily except the rich, that's why we need a government( by the people) to intervene.
Its that simple.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT WE NEED A GOVERNMENT WE CAN TRUST
GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE NOT CORPORATE SHILLS



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I don't really follow what you are trying to convey.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Willtell
reply to post by xuenchen
 


To repeat this to you:

We don’t, for example, need universal insurance for automobiles because the economic system for auto insurance is stable enough to keep it private. The healthcare system on the other hand is too economically unstable to be private, no one can afford it easily except the rich, that's why we need a government( by the people) to intervene.
Its that simple.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT WE NEED A GOVERNMENT WE CAN TRUST
GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE NOT CORPORATE SHILLS


No.

No. No. No.

We need to find ways to reduce costs so everyone can afford it.

Not involve government so everyone can pay high prices.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Canada, France, England, Germany, and ALL modern, civilized countries have some form of viable universal healthcare. The fact that we are still fighting for this is a reflection of the backward, anti-humanitarian Republican Party.

Unfortunately many of the people are brainwashed with Republican talking points and rhetoric: Communism…Socialism canards that really don’t apply at all.
Are any of the above countries communist or socialist?



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


The biggest difference is that we believe in individualism.

The right of the individual.

We believe in personal responsibility. That the individual is responsible for themselves and not the state.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The free market won’t bring prices down, IMO.

It’s like the college tuition system n America. In many European countries college is free or near free. But here we just give free education up to HS. Why?

It’s clear the system is so out of control, healthcare and educational economics that ONLY government (of the people) can balance it.

Again, I think the basic problem is that we don’t have a government (of the people)

We can’t trust government that includes conservative and liberals both.

We recognize that we do no longer have a government OF THE PEOPLE.


We have politicians who are out for themselves and their special interest sponsors



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 

Well, let's clarify something first that is a point of confusion since we are talking about the "vagaries". What you mean to say is that we don't know how to do that and you are right we don't. I have lots of things to say going down that path that reveal why it is so dangerous to attempt to use bureaucracies to implement policies to achieve goals that individuals can't plan.

I get the impression that you didn't know that 'health insurance' was an invention of business in america at the end of WWII to get around the salary caps that were put in place to limit the amount of pay that an individual could receive from a company for their services. It was created along with other 'benefits' to attract talent that would otherwise not choose to work at the limit of the salary cap.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


To what degree?

I believe in individualism also, but in a society of people you need a healthy balance between individualism and collectivism, such as our taxes pay for: Schools, roads, bridges, police, fire etc.

Do you go on public tax payer roads?

Do you call the public fire department?

911 when you need it?

All these things and more are paid by tax dollars.

Balance is the key, unless you want to move to the woods or mountains and live alone. Even then you cant do totally what you want to do.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


I don't know when prices got out of hand.

I don't know HOW to rein them back in.

I remember, in my youth, my parents paying for our healthcare.

Even in England, we paid.

You require a service? You pay for it.

You go to a restaurant and eat, you pay the bill.

Healthcare is NOT a right. It is NOT an entitlement.

Healthcare has gotten complex. I even carry malpractice insurance for my small role in my profession. I blame lawyers for creating an environment where prices had to be high in order to pay claims made.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


Do you eat food?
Do you wear clothes?
Do you use a computer?
Do you watch television?

Where does it stop???



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


If you want to decry how the baby boom generation has formed the present socio-economic paradigms, such as you mention, that’s one thing. That can only be dealt with over time. Meanwhile as a society of civilized people we have to try to make life equitable for every one in this country within the present parameters of the evolved system.

We as Americans do not live in space. No man is an island. We should look to other societies and see how they deal with this issue which transcends economic and political systems.

We won’t arrive at perfection but at least we can alleviate somme inequities somewhat maybe.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Willtell
reply to post by xuenchen
 


To repeat this to you:

We don’t, for example, need universal insurance for automobiles because the economic system for auto insurance is stable enough to keep it private. The healthcare system on the other hand is too economically unstable to be private, no one can afford it easily except the rich, that's why we need a government( by the people) to intervene.
Its that simple.

THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT WE NEED A GOVERNMENT WE CAN TRUST
GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE NOT CORPORATE SHILLS


Now it's auto insurance too !!!!

Your points and arguments blaming Republicans for all these health insurance problems is weak.

But let's assume you're right, and it's all Republicans' fault.

How about some points *and* authorities to support the argument.

Assuming this is not just some mass hysteria, it must be *legislations and policies* right ?

So, please cite a dozen or so Republican legislations and policies that support your argument.

Please be as specific as you have been so far in your arguments.

Oh and btw, please show some logical proof. Hocus Pocus won't be sufficient.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 

Strictly speaking, individualism is anarchy so, my guess is that you don't believe in individualism.

I think most of us would be happy to have our representative republic back. For me, very recently, I came to the conclusion that in order for us to get that back, I must be willing to demand anarchy and settle for representative republic a la progressive style political strategy mixed with free market negotiation tactics.

In order for me to do this honestly, I must be comfortable with anarchy and I was not... until last week.

It was a mental block, a forbidden fruit that was not to be suggested and I kept finding myself being accused of being one. It stalled my conversations and was my achilles heel. After reading extensively and clarifying it all in my head, I now accept it.

So, while I am now OK with anarchy, I still really want the constitutional republic that I thought I grew up in (more on that later).



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Ultimately, this is a philosophical issue of balance: collectivism and individualism.

There needs to be a healthy balance.

I too firmly am an individualist, more than you think, believe me.

If you live in a society of civilized people you inherently agree to certain conditions and one is to accept certain minimum collectivist norms.

You can’t go in a movie and yell fire when there is none.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


As I said to Beezer, ultimately, this is a philosophical issue of balance: collectivism and individualism.

I think what you forget is that anything in life takes energy to maintain, and a civil society is no different.
It will always be a challenge of synergy versus anarchy versus tyranny in this dynamic system of social adhesiveness.

You have made your philosophical choice, that’s your right.


edit on 20-9-2013 by Willtell because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join