tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post4611920514790832607..comments2023-07-07T04:02:25.375-04:00Comments on Sane Political Discourse: What's in a Right or Dilution Through RedistributionPatrick Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-33497332776473164902009-06-28T09:11:42.064-04:002009-06-28T09:11:42.064-04:00We have a Bill of Rights. Many/most of us support ...We have a Bill of Rights. Many/most of us support it. <br /><br />That is a perfect example of being against "majority-rule democracy".dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-37197423203655814552009-06-26T14:31:54.515-04:002009-06-26T14:31:54.515-04:00"Do you get involved in the political process...<b>"Do you get involved in the political process?"</b><br /><br />But of course. Because, “Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt.” <b>Meaning</b> “Those without power cannot defend freedom.” <br /><br />I focus my efforts on getting government to where it ought to be. <br /><br />And for the record, I do in fact pay my taxes. And as I do, my hope is that they are spent in a legitimate fashion.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-77451093160918664792009-06-26T14:25:08.091-04:002009-06-26T14:25:08.091-04:00Since things are not the way you would like them t...Since things are not the way you would like them to be, how do you deal with the reality of politics and government the way they are?<br />Do you get involved in the political process? Do you ignore government, like refusing to pay taxes?<br />Would you like to see a Constitutional Convention to rewrite, make more clear, or redirect government and its power?<br />I am one that deals with what is at hand. Whether or not that is the way it should be.<br />I focus on what I need to do dealing with the system the way it is, to meet my needs and goals.<br />It's the vote number (mainly by the Congress but also by the public) that determines the laws we must live by. <br />Certainly the public is not always correct. Sometimes the laws the public liked, turned out to be a disaster. Sometimes the laws the public hated, turned out to be best for the country.Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474837430855732529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-30138862642035884192009-06-26T13:31:33.009-04:002009-06-26T13:31:33.009-04:00Soapster: You fouled it a little, then smacked a ...Soapster: You fouled it a little, then smacked a grand slam, as I knew you would (because I knew you'd (eventually) say what you said in your last comment).Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-40800509302187582009-06-25T22:59:10.691-04:002009-06-25T22:59:10.691-04:00Eau Contraire:
DEMOCRACY:
A government of the m...Eau Contraire:<br /><br />DEMOCRACY: <br /><br />A government of the masses... <br />Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression... <br />Results in mobocracy... <br />Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights... <br />Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences... <br />Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy...<br /><br />REPUBLIC: <br /><br />Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them... <br />Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences... <br />A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass....<br />Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy... <br />Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress... <br />Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world...<br /><br />In recent years, we have been taught to believe that a democracy is the ideal form of government... Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution... But, if you read the documents and the speech transcripts of the men who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of democracy... They said in plain words that a democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government. And so they created what they called a republic... That is why the word democracy doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution; and, when Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, it’s to the republic for which it stands, not the democracy... When Colonel Davy Crockett joined the Texas Revolution prior to the famous Battle of the Alamo, he refused to sign the oath of allegiance to the future government of Texas until the wording was changed to the future republican government of Texas...<br /><br />The reason this is important is that the difference between a democracy and a republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism... <br /><br />In a pure democracy, the majority rules; end of discussion. You might say, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there could be plenty wrong with that. What about a lynch mob? There is only one person with a dissenting vote, and he is the guy at the end of the rope... That’s pure democracy in action... “Ah, wait a minute,” you say... “The majority should rule... Yes, but not to the extent of denying the rights of the minority,” and, of course, you would be correct... That is precisely what a republic accomplishes... A republic is a government based on the principle of limited majority rule so that the minority – even a minority of one – will be protected from the whims and passions of the majority... Republics are often characterized by written constitutions that spell out the rules to make that possible... That was the function of the American Bill of Rights, which is nothing more than a list of things the government may not do... It says that Congress, even though it represents the majority, shall pass no law denying the minority their rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and other “unalienable” rights...Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-42225511149677365322009-06-25T19:58:01.481-04:002009-06-25T19:58:01.481-04:00But the American Constitution sets up a government...But the American Constitution sets up a government of a majority vote democracy, so you must be against such a document, yes?Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474837430855732529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-6020324943936285862009-06-25T19:56:31.071-04:002009-06-25T19:56:31.071-04:00"Time: So your against majority rule democrac...<b>"Time: So your against majority rule democracy?<br /><br />I surspect Soapster's answer, as mine, will be a resounding YES. But I'll let him explain and hit it out of the park."</b><br /><br />Patrick, I'm afraid my response may have come up foul ball.<br /><br />Let me take this next fastball and respond accordingly.<br /><br /><i>"So your against majority rule democracy?"</i><br /><br />Up and until I should come to find myself amongst the majority so that we may extinguish the previous majority who dismissed us when we were the greatest minority of all; individuals.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-11335744303687662842009-06-25T19:52:43.812-04:002009-06-25T19:52:43.812-04:00One more mention on Society:
Collectivists (be th...One more mention on Society:<br /><br />Collectivists (be they socialists, communists, fascists, etc.) see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.<br /><br />However we should recall that a great deal may be learned about society by studying man; but this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by studying society—by studying the inter-relationships of entities one has never identified or defined.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-64637841499851980682009-06-25T19:49:10.689-04:002009-06-25T19:49:10.689-04:00"So your against majority rule democracy?&quo...<b>"So your against majority rule democracy?"</b><br /><br />Whatever tipped you off? Of course I am. <br /><br /><b>"...but are you not living in the wrong country?"</b><br /><br />At this present moment it pains me to no end to answer in the affirmative.<br /><br /><b>"But who and how builds a society?"</b><br /><br />Society is a collection of individuals who co-exist voluntarily under the rule of law not the rule of men. <br /><br /><b>"Are you a pure anarchist?"</b><br /><br />An anarchist no. A minimalist, libertarian, objectivist, individual, et al. yes.<br /><br />Government has a legitimate function which is codified in our Constitution. I'd like to see us return to such function and little else in short order.<br /><br />What is more, let us make no mistake about it. Anarchy comes to fruition not in light of an absence of laws. Anarchy is blowback for the existence of too many laws.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-53079457015187380642009-06-25T17:15:50.935-04:002009-06-25T17:15:50.935-04:00Fine, but are you not living in the wrong country?...Fine, but are you not living in the wrong country?<br />If happiness is a goal in your life, how can you be happy living under America's style of government?<br />ANY law passed squelches someones life, in that any law eliminates someones free choice.<br />I would never claim that choices made by the majority are just.<br />When you talk about corporate greed and other inequalities of life, I agree.<br />But who and how builds a society? <br />Are you a pure anarchist?Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474837430855732529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-76313602574190596442009-06-25T17:05:01.737-04:002009-06-25T17:05:01.737-04:00Time: So your against majority rule democracy?
I...Time: <i>So your against majority rule democracy?</i><br /><br />I surspect Soapster's answer, as mine, will be a resounding <b>YES</b>. But I'll let him explain and hit it out of the park.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-46459925188776107802009-06-25T17:02:51.076-04:002009-06-25T17:02:51.076-04:00So your against majority rule democracy?So your against majority rule democracy?Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474837430855732529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-53454117619437807442009-06-25T16:54:47.724-04:002009-06-25T16:54:47.724-04:00I'm most certainly not off base. What is howev...I'm most certainly not off base. What is however way off base is to infer that Capitalisms moral justification is to "fill the needs of society".<br /><br />What I'm saying is that Capitalism does this but that it is not the proper justification (moral or otherwise) for promoting it. <br /><br />Capitalism is the only economic system which is consonant with man's being and inherent nature. <br /><br /><b>"What you talk about, your philosophy of capitalism, is why capitalism is in such trouble."</b><br /><br />Again you couldn't be more incorrect. <br /><br />You're philosophy & understanding (or lack thereof) bastardizes the true meaning and intent of Capitalism. It is your definition of Capitalism which leads to individuals being granted homes that they can ill afford in an effort to provide societal betterment. It is your version of Capitalism which carves out monopolies that could never exist in a Laissez Faire form of Capitalism.<br /><br /><b>"That is capitalism of greed, not capitalism of ensuring a better society, while enriching oneself."</b><br /><br />Greed is not to be mistaken for the man who employs his working mind to create the next greatest invention of the 21st century and then seeks ownership of said intellectual property.<br /><br />No no no. Greed is attributed to those who seek to collectivize the product that came from one man's mind and claim it as their own.<br /><br />Greed is a company like Sylvania or GE who jumps in bed with government and gets government to carve out a monopoly for it whereby legislation is passed so that you can no longer purchase incandescent light bulbs but instead must purchase a $4 CFL lightbulb. That is Greed my friend.<br /><br />My version of Capitalism (and the only sort of Capitalism there is) allows a man and/or company to put their best product forward so that consumers may decide voluntary who shall become successful and subsequently wealthy.<br /><br />Bill Gates owes nothing more to society. He needn't give millions of dollars away to anyone because you see...<br /><br />His contribution to society through his product is contribution enough. He created a product that people could purchase voluntarily and thus, businesses were created, people had jobs, capital grew. He owes society nothing more.<br /><br /><b>"Generations of Americans have sent their children to private schools, but they are not relieved of pay taxes for their local public schools, nor should they be."</b><br /><br />So, if you're on a diet and everyone at your work pitches in $5 a month for a pizza party, but you being on a diet and wishing to eat a salad instead, should be forced to pitch in the $5??<br /><br />Why the hell should someone pay for a service that they themselves are not benefitting from? I don't have children either so pray tell why the hell I ought to shell out tax money for my neighbor's kid to go to public school?<br /><br />Oh lemme guess...because we need educated people in society and him/her being educated works to my benefit should they ring me up in a store, etc.<br /><br />Well I should say it works to their benefit if I have automobile insurance should the two of us be involved in a car crash. AND YET..I don't expect them to subsidize my auto insurance now do I??<br /><br />And lastly, let me remind you that simply because a majority (i.e., society) votes for something much to the chagrin of the minority does not the practice make just.<br /><br />Suppose we the majority thought it virtuous to carve out one of your kidneys for someone who "really needed it". I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess you'd have a little objection to that.<br /><br />If the majority in our society thinks that a healthy populace is to their benefit great I concur as well. But I draw the line at any attempt to squelch my personal life, liberty, and pursuit under the guise that some total stranger might live an extra few years thanks to my contribution to his health care premium.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-47700977689868768652009-06-25T15:51:24.613-04:002009-06-25T15:51:24.613-04:00Soapbox God,
We must be talking about different t...Soapbox God,<br /><br />We must be talking about different things, or you are just way off base. <br /><br />I'm not talking about a socialist commune philosophy. I'm talking about the number of people needed to build a decent society.<br /><br />Can you defend the country from our enemies, by yourself? Can you stop crime in our country, by yourself? Can you put out all fires, by yourself? Can you educate all children, by yourself? Can you build roads, by yourself?<br /><br />It takes communal hard work and communal taxation to build a great society. Without these essential services, we would be less than a 3rd World country.<br /><br />Capitalism is not, and never was just how much money one can make. If capitalism does not fill the needs of society, it fails. Just as recent bankrupt companies have proven.<br /><br />Capitalism thrives on producing what people need, or a product that makes life better, customer satisfaction, and improving the lifestyles of the people.<br /><br />What you talk about, your philosophy of capitalism, is why capitalism is in such trouble. That is capitalism of greed, not capitalism of ensuring a better society, while enriching oneself. <br /><br />Capitalism has a responsibility to society, and society has a responsibility to capitalism. Why do we give tax credits to business, if it were not that a business will make the community richer, not just the owner of the business? <br /><br />Henry Ford - His product would mean nothing if the people had not taxed themselves to build roads.<br /><br />I've seen Gates interviewed many times. Sure he got rich, but he states himself that he thought his product would make life better and that's why he was so focused on invention. <br /><br />He is retired from Microsoft, and now spends his life full-time giving his money away to the poor and Health projects that will better society and peoples lives.<br /><br />I don't have children, but I have to pay school taxes, I agree with paying school taxes, it makes for a better, more secure society.<br /><br />Generations of Americans have sent their children to private schools, but they are not relieved of pay taxes for their local public schools, nor should they be.<br /><br />I hate to think of the poor condition of our society if we had your go it alone attitude.<br /><br />Now society believes it is the best interest of our country to have every one insured for Health Care. You may disagree with that, but explain why a healthier people is NOT good for our society.<br /><br />Americans believe it important enough (like military defense) to communally tax ourselves for it.<br /><br />And if a majority vote for it, hey, like I said i don't like paying school taxes, but I agree it builds a better society. I think healthier people make a better society.Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474837430855732529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-87183187325862579962009-06-25T14:43:28.285-04:002009-06-25T14:43:28.285-04:00"We would be no where, we would not be the Gr...<b>"We would be no where, we would not be the Great country that we are, if we had not worked and paid into a collective society."</b><br /><br />Bullshit. One need only look to the great collectivist societies throughout history to conclude as much. Where are they now? Where is the great collectivist society of Nazi Germany? Of Soviet Russia? Of Socialist Europe? <br /><br />Collective prosperity wasn't the fundamental or primary premise by which Americans operated. Quite the contrary. <br /><br />Collective prosperity was merely a consequence of Individuals in America working for their own rational self-interest.<br /><br />Henry Ford didn't invent the Model T for the benefit of the collective. He invented it for himself and it merely comes to pass that the collective benefits as a consequence. Same goes for Bill Gates. He doesn't invent Microsoft Windows because the collective demands it. He invents it to satisfy his own curiosity and his own self-interest.<br /><br /><b>"You could not enjoy the life we have in America, without the help of your fellow citizens."</b><br /><br />Again, the "help" of my fellow citizens is not a primary but a secondary; a consequence. My fellow citizen doesn't open a business merely to satisfy my need for employment. He opens it to first and foremost satisfy his own desire and to sustain his own life.<br /><br />He employs me because he needs workers to satisfy his need just as I accept the pay he offers and agree to work for him because I need to satisfy my desires.<br /><br />Our relationship is neutral in as much as it is voluntary. We are not indebted to each other but instead we are indebted to ourselves.<br /><br />I owe him no eternal praise as he owes me no eternal praise. <br /><br />And so while you may very well disagree with my previous statement, the greater likelihood is that you do not understand it.<br /><br />And so I stand by my previous statement:<br /><br /><b><i>"I don't work and produce for his prosperity. I work and produce for my own prosperity and the prosperity and betterment of my family."</i></b><br /><br /><i>My</i> prosperity (working for my fellow citizen) is contigent upon <i>his</i> prosperity. <br /><br />It is inherent to man's nature to survive for himself and to take the means necessary to sustain his life by acquiring food, clothing, shelter, etc.<br /><br />It is not inherent to man's nature that he work to sustain his life so that he may live for the sake of someone other than himself.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-81514975379764999772009-06-25T12:37:59.247-04:002009-06-25T12:37:59.247-04:00There are many government services I disagree with...There are many government services I disagree with, that I HAVE to pay taxes for, because the majority of my fellow Americans have voted that a certain service is what they want and what they feel is best for our society.<br /><br />Debating the use of our tax dollars is the never ending debate and is decided at the ballot box.<br /><br />But, Soapboxgod said,<br /><br /><br />"I don't work and produce for his prosperity. I work and produce for my own prosperity and the prosperity and betterment of my family."<br /><br />I not only disagree, but your statement is not reflective of the factual History of America.<br /><br />We would be no where, we would not be the Great country that we are, if we had not worked and paid into a collective society.<br /><br />My (and your) personal work and financial contributions to society has built this country for the prosperity and betterment of all.<br /><br />You could not enjoy the life we have in America, without the help of your fellow citizens.Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474837430855732529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-19323095051571768952009-06-25T09:13:56.514-04:002009-06-25T09:13:56.514-04:00"101: I endorse a system we all pay into. In ...<b>"101: I endorse a system we all pay into. In essence, it makes the poor also pay."</b><br /><br />If we are all paying into a system, then why the hell wouldn't each individual/family simply pay their own cost in a private system?<br /><br />I'm not comfortable pooling it into one big slush fund when the reality is that individuals within said fund may very well use a greater proportion of healthcare services than I. <br /><br />A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy. I am not my brother's keeper nor is he mine. I don't work and produce for his prosperity. I work and produce for my own prosperity and the prosperity and betterment of my family.<br /><br />There is no moral justification for complete and total strangers to stake claim, in such a "pooled" system, to the contributions that I have made to said pool. Nor do I endorse a "pooled" system that everyone pays into by force.<br /><br />If individuals prefer a "pooled" type of system then they may very well collectivize their contributions and distribute said funds as needed by members of said group. <br /><br />Conversely, if my preference is NOT to collectivize (and it is) then I ought to be permitted to act as such.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-62469803784206357792009-06-24T21:00:45.387-04:002009-06-24T21:00:45.387-04:00101: I endorse a system we all pay into. In essenc...101: <i>I endorse a system we all pay into. In essence, it makes the poor also pay.</i><br /><br />Except for the people who couldn't pay, and then they'd get the free ride. Then it comes back to the "right" to health care argument, which could then be used to shift responsibility for the government system onto the people who can afford to pay the most (because that kind of shit buys votes for Democrats). <br /><br />But you are right that the GOP is piss poor on ideas. So I'll have to whip something up, now that I'm done getting my newest computer online.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-9832048276387039552009-06-23T16:49:33.381-04:002009-06-23T16:49:33.381-04:00"So for those that can't afford health ca...<b><i>"So for those that can't afford health care Soabbox, would you have them do without?"</i></b><br /><br />Were government at all levels not so predestined to impose a myriad of regulations upon the healthcare industry, et al. affordability would much more accessible as the removal of many unnecessary regulations would free up the market. Hence, people would have accessibility to catestrophic type plans or plans that don't cover items not pertinent to the individual and as well the individual purchaser would have the ability to cross state lines in an attempt to find a provider (something they are prohibited from doing in many states).<br /><br />There are many things in life I do without because of cost. Healthcare, regardless of its importance, is no different.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-72957862021326171392009-06-23T14:19:26.784-04:002009-06-23T14:19:26.784-04:00So for those that can't afford health care Soa...So for those that can't afford health care Soabbox, would you have them do without? I've submitted my ideas about single payer national health insurance. All I've seen from the right is quips about government and a veiled protection of the haves over those that don't. <br /><br /> Little catch phrases like "safety net" might fool a few into thinking everthing is fine. But it's not fine. We haves pay the bills of the have nots already. I don't know ytour economic situation SBG, but mine is not so grand that I can pay their bills plus mine without struggle. I endorse a system we all pay into. In essence, it makes the poor also pay. I figured once the right figured that out they would jump on board with it. Much like tobacco taxes.Joe "Truth 101" Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08875151516978133598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-70566603249990501492009-06-22T21:39:00.224-04:002009-06-22T21:39:00.224-04:00And for the record, there is no "right" ...And for the record, there is no "right" to any healthcare other than the healthcare you administer to yourself or have administered to you by another with their voluntary and uncoerced consent.<br /><br />The same goes for the cost of healthcare. There is no right to "affordable" healthcare.<br /><br />Asserting otherwise on either scenario presupposes that there exists an individual who, by threat of force, will provide said services.<br /><br />Rights to not define or guarantee an end. What they do guarantee is an action. That is to say there is a right to act or to pursue healthcare or healthcare that is affordable by your standard. There is no guarantee that you will achieve either just as there exists no guarantee that you will live, be liberated from ever being held captive or otherwise, or that you will attain the happiness you so desperately desire.<br /><br />But indeed you are sure has hell able to try without being compulsed, coerced, or intimidated otherwise.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-85215747801448406952009-06-22T21:31:05.024-04:002009-06-22T21:31:05.024-04:00"...the latest poll shows that 74% of America...<b><i>"...the latest poll shows that 74% of Americans think a public plan should be part of their choices."</i></b><br /><br />If 99% of the American populace thought it proper to sacrifice the other 1% in hopes of curing cancer for the other 99%, still the practice would not be just.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-8313386201190508672009-06-22T20:03:07.285-04:002009-06-22T20:03:07.285-04:00I don't trust government anymore than I trust ...I don't trust government anymore than I trust the current Health Care Corporations.<br /><br />The difference is that government waste is mainly because of bureaucracy, which is the definition of institutional waste, not of intent, but of process.<br /><br />Mismanagement and waste of government programs happens in EVERY government program. <br /><br />It is the responsibility of our elected representatives to oversee that process, They are failing to do that job.<br /><br />That is our fault. We hired (elected) them, we can fire them, and it is our job to supervise them. We have failed at our job, as involved citizens.<br /><br />Corporate waste is more devious and intentional. Greed is their motivator to gouge profits wherever and whoever than can get it from. <br /><br />They take premiums and refuse to pay claims, they charge fees for drugs and services that are double, or more, than anywhere else in the World. <br /><br />They make life and death decisions based on money and an individuals worth. Sorry, I don't accept that one life is better than another, just because one has a bigger bank account than another. <br /><br />Competition is not always healthy, but it always has an effect on the market place. Getting the same services elsewhere will either change the competitions mode of operation, or they will go out of business. <br /><br />If people believe Health Care should be a right, fine, let them change the Constitution, if they can get the votes. If they think Health Care is already a right, that is their delusion.<br /><br />I don't like Obama's plan, but I don't see a plan from the Republicans, and the latest poll shows that 74% of Americans think a public plan should be part of their choices.<br /><br />That is not a cry from the U.N. or assumed by a magical government, that is the American people speaking.<br /><br />We seem to trust government to do roads, buildings, defense, and many other vital projects. Health Care is no more, or less vital than protecting our lives and property.Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09474837430855732529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-86767426758114333502009-06-22T18:58:18.733-04:002009-06-22T18:58:18.733-04:00Apologies if you were expecting a quicker response...Apologies if you were expecting a quicker response. Remember, those weekends I have the kids and am not working, it's a bitch for me to get near the computer (at least until I get my laptop up and running (should be Tuesday or Wednesday (which I have off, so no guarantees))).<br /><br />101: As well as idiots like Nancy Pelosi, slobbering Barney Frank, and all the morons on both sides that spend like it's somebody else's money (which may leave a dozen or two people that don't need kicked to the curb).<br /><br /><i>Unless you are a very wealthy person Dmarks, your only choice is to accept whatever health insurance plan your employer sponsors.</i><br /><br />And that would be because the government has set up the fucking system that way. And you wonder why we don't trust them?<br /><br />Dmarks: I thought i was sufficiently obscene to indicate my loathing of government takeover of anything. But, since you missed it: I'd prefer an ass-raping with a mop handle embedded with razor blades, and only ketchup for lube than a total government takeover of health care.<br /><br />A horribly flawed but free system will ALWAYS be better.<br /><br />Tao: <i>Patrick, hard work has no rewards...wake up!</i><br /><br />If that's the case, then I'm sitting on my ass and collecting for the rest of my life. And so is everyone else (including you).<br /><br />However, based on your posts, that doesn't seem like what you believe.<br /><br /><i>...give us a definition of 'due process' ...</i><br /><br />Due process is the administration of law. In my specific usage, it refers to the loss of rights by accusation, trial, and conviction for breaking laws. It can also be through legal action by the government (an example being eminent domain) for non-punitive reasons. Hopefully this helps you follow where I was going. <br /><br />Time: There's a difference between what is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and those magically assumed by government (and declared by the UN). The problem is that too many people pushing for the universal care believe it is a right. And they don't seem to have a problem that the Constitution doesn't say so.<br /><br /><i>Obama's plan IS healthy competition as long as it does not eliminate private options.</i><br /><br />Since when has the government ever fostered healthy competition by getting involved? Again, it comes back to trusting the government, which isn't going to happen here. Not for this. Not under Bush. Not under Reagan. Definitely not under Obama.<br /><br />Soapman: <i>On the Fair Tax... it fails to address... reigning in Government Spending.</i><br /><br />It doesn't. The most it does is make legalized government theft transparent so we can see how much they're wasting. Spending reform is the other side of the coin (and something that needs separately addressed). Same with the Flat Tax, unless there's also a balanced budget clause slipped in there.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-60337673156832487712009-06-22T10:46:47.278-04:002009-06-22T10:46:47.278-04:00On the Fair Tax....
For all its virtues Patrick, ...On the Fair Tax....<br /><br />For all its virtues Patrick, I've not seen it addressed that it fails to address on any meaningful level <b>THE</b> fundamental problem which is of course reigning in Government Spending.<br /><br />It is for this reasons such as this that I have slid further away from supporting the Fair Tax plan in favor of a Flat Tax.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.com