Another reason entitlements need to go bye-bye

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Pico [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ahh the false dichotomy. either the govt provides nothing and you live a life of freedom and happiness and roses or you have everything provided to you and you're a baby who makes no choices.

You can turn anything into a dichotomy. I mean, lets talk about killing. I could say that either it is bad, or it is good, and thus a false dichotomy. However, rational individuals tend to avoid that type of thinking.

I am not saying the govt is always bad, but the notion that they are motivated by altruistic ends is just silly. I believe in many aspects in which the government is necessary - and in fact, even support SOME social programs. However, much like you want to govt to restrict business practices, I feel the government should be restricted in it's practices. Those restrictions must come from the basic belief that liberty is the foundation on which our society was built, and social programs that infringe that liberty are fundamentally unjust.

The problem you statist have with us libertarians is that you turn all our arguments into these all or nothing propositions - which sometimes is the case, but far more often it is not the case. Despite popular belief, us anarcho-capitalist, libertarians, austrians, whatever you want to call us - we don't want your grandparents to be dying on the street because they can't get health-care - we just don't think the government is the entity to be providing it.

Furthermore, you talk about capitalism like it is a bad thing. If you listen to ron paul, or the judge, or fuck, pick up a book about economics and read it - you'll realize there is a big difference between corporatism and capitalism. We live in a state of corporatism in which greedy businesses and lobbyist hold direct influence over the politicians you expect to provide for us. While I'm against govt healthcare in general, the biggest issue, and the one you seem unable to grasp is that even if the government does provide healthcare, the influence and driving force will still come from a corrupt private sector - and that corruption is enabled by government policies and regulations that restrict competition.

However, you probably won't read this anyway so it is a moot point. Whatever, I'm bored and hell, maybe I'll get one of you jerks to actually think about it (I use "jerks" in an endearing sense, ask anyone <3)

[Hoggen]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is a business plan, and a fucking sound one that every nation in the world with a more desirable credit rating follows. It's also too late to implement in America, in my opinion. We've been inextricably infiltrated by corporate interests and they can actually convince us at this point that institutions are too large to die. Frankly we've let the plutocracy pull the rug out from under us. America is and will be little more than a rock tumbler which turns newborn potential into aged, terrified complacence.

Japan: universal health care for decades. Same credit rating as US. More than four times the US debt to GDP ratio
Greece: Universal health care. Credit rating of CC. Nearly 3 times the debt to GDP ratio of the US.
Italy: universal health care. Credit rating same as the US. Double the US debt to GDP ratio.

I could continue to list countries with the same or worse credit rating to the US all day that have state run or universal health care systems. Many of the AAA countries remaining are on the verge of losing it i.e. the UK, France, Austria, and Finland. While their credit ratings can hardly be tied exclusively to their health care systems, I think your suggestion that somehow the US is in trouble because it doesn't have universal health care flies in the face of fact. The US is in trouble because it spends too much. Less than a quarter of US spending is on Medicare/Medicaid. While that's way too much, it's still only a portion of the problem that is endemic to the political system as it stands. If Cut Cap and Balance had passed to law, there would have been no credit downgrade. Any number of other plans could have been formulated that would have averted a downgrade. The government chose to pass something irrelevant instead.

[Barkingturtle]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem you statist have with us libertarians is that you turn all our arguments into these all or nothing propositions - which sometimes is the case, but far more often it is not the case.

Nah, the problem I have with libertarians is that you're being intellectually dishonest. I mean it all sounds great, but you and I both know it's totally unrealistic.

[Skope]

[QUOTE=Loke;359459Spencer was a smart guy. To infringe upon the liberty of select individuals for the monetary benefit of others is morally reprehensible. The only instance in which it is socially acceptable to limit individual liberty is when that individual liberty restricts the liberty of others. With that being said, social programs do not apply due to the fact that they limit the liberty of some with no benefit to the notion of over all equal liberty. Again, the focus here is not on general equality, but equality of freedom.[/QUOTE]

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and I interpret "Life" to include health. If i'm sick and starving, riddled with malignant tumors and in exchange for health and well-being I had to give up my right to vote then you can have it. The human condition (and all living creatures) at its core is defined by the will to survive and pass on your genes, the notion of freedom only comes as an afterthought.

The biggest reasons for the lack of national healthcare are the fact that the entire medical and health industry is treated as a cash cow by middle-men (insurance companies, mainly), hospitals being run as fortune 500 companies and the absolutely insane amount of money that hospitals, employees and private doctor's offices pay for insurance.

Then there's http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...th-of-new-meds and it's shit like that that actually makes you physically ill when reading. Researchers hands are tied because they're afraid of strict legislation and the stringent requirements to get to the point where the medication can be prescribed by doctors to patients nationwide; a failure results in millions and billions of dollars lost in investment <~~ doesn't help. This isn't just a flaw in over-regulation by government, or one of the obvious downsides of capitalism, but the way we approach medical care as a nation.

Treating it like a business means you'll always have gaping holes. The benefits to creating a pill that can ease patients' issues with schizophrenia sounds fantastic until you see the bill and realize that the market isn't big enough (not enough people diagnosed with the disease) and/or it's too damn complicated to pursue. A business doesn't willingly put itself in the red for the sake of a small group of people; not unless it wants to fail. On the other hand, the government regulations are a direct hyper-response to lawsuits, and many of them frivolous, in order to cover everyone's ass. They often overreact because people don't understand how complicated biology and the human body really are, and in the end everyone gets fucked. But there's a reason why healthcare costs are so much more higher here than elsewhere in the developed world: the obvious correlation between the american instinct to sue and the rise of healthcare costs.

[Ihealyou]

Originally Posted by deakolt [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i love how everyone on the forums who thinks they're intellectual uses the same attack:

"get your money back for that intro class"
"take that community college class again"

hahahaha dumbshits the lot of you

Seems like you learned a lot in your how to be dumb class.


Dummy.

[Ennoia]

Originally Posted by Skope [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

much like car insurance? Neither of which I agree with because of the whole "mandatory" thing

Car insurance depends on the state. I know CT requires it, but some other state around here (NH? Mass? Don't really know, I don't drive) doesn't require it, though you're fucked if you get into an accident.

The entire thing with the government and economics...there's so much nonsensical bullshit going on with the lack of common sense on the part of the majority of the human populous and government officials being greedy pieces of shit that need to be dragged out back and beaten to death with a tire iron that I don't even want to get into it. On top of all of it, the rest of the world fucking hates us because we keep poking out nose where it doesn't belong. If our leaders weren't such assholes to other countries we wouldn't need this huge fucking military because people wouldn't have their shit pointed at us.

[purist]

America: The only country where millions of retards froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it, and who take pleasure at the thought of gutting social security, literally the last lifeline of the working poor

[Hoggen]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

America: The only country where millions of retards froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it, and who take pleasure at the thought of gutting social security, literally the last lifeline of the working poor

Come up with a working way to pay for it sustainably and maybe someone will care what you have to say Purist.

[Barkingturtle]

Originally Posted by Hoggen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Any number of other plans could have been formulated that would have averted a downgrade. The government chose to pass something irrelevant instead.

Any plan at all in fact, apart from the one which was implemented, would have avoided the downgrade. Unfortunately we have all been held hostage by a house full of folks who don't mind making our lives worse so long as they manage to convince their constituents the other guy is responsible. We're not unattractive because of our policies, but because of our attitudes.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

America: SUCH A HUGE FUCKING SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT IT IS SICKENING.

ftfy