On a state and local basis yes. On a federal basis absolutely NO. On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Do either of you think that your neighbor has a "right" to one dime of > your money for education? > > On Oct 2, 12:06 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well stated Mark.. > > > > > there is NO right for my neighbor to see one dime of my money paying > for HIS healthcare. > > > > Especially when I am working hard, earning a good salary and being > > heavily taxed already and I'm also working hard at the gym, eating > > healthy and doing all I can to remain healthy while my neighbor > > exploits social programs to avoid working, paying no taxes, eats fast > > food and lays around the house getting fat and unhealthy. > > > > On Oct 2, 12:20 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > No, government is sworn to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. > now > > > you are mixing the rights of states under the constitution with those > > > enumerated duties of the feds. > > > > > Has government cured the woes of drugs, alchohol, or health care in its > MANY > > > attempts or has it just muddied the waters and caused pricing to be out > of > > > control ?? > > > > > In its many efforts to ban alchohol, drugs and guns it has built > criminal > > > organizations that rival the police forces.... and left the general > public > > > more and more helpless. > > > > > In its many attempts at general population healthcare it has fostered a > > > system of graft and corruption that had a bigger bottom line than > General > > > Motors last year (and this). > > > > > Show me one unqualified governmental success in dealing with a SOCIAL > > > problem..... > > > > > there is NO right for my neighbor to see one dime of my money paying > for HIS > > > healthcare. > > > > > I do have a right to openly (and proudly) carry a weapon. > > > > > yet Government has these two reversed in its efforts..... > > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:37 AM, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think you meant "why can a foreigner use." And actually the > > > > Government does regulate drugs and alcohol (but that's a serperate > > > > issue). Our Government was forbade from regulating religion, and they > > > > do regulate health care currently. The debate here is about reforming > > > > the system. > > > > > > And yes healthcare is a social issue, right along with education and > > > > crime. > > > > > > Dictionary: so·ci·e·tal (sə-sī'ĭ-tl) > > > > > > Of or relating to the structure, organization, or functioning of > > > > society. > > > > > > And point is you said Government has never been able to, and should > > > > not regulate social problems, which is an outright lie. Fixing these > > > > problems is the very basis of Government: To address social issues, > > > > and fight off invading armies. > > > > > > On Oct 2, 1:15 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > social problems as defined by common usage in todays political > climate. > > > > > > > healthcare > > > > > alchohol/drug abuse > > > > > religious expression > > > > > > > are Social, but not necessarily Societal problems. > > > > > > > why is a fucking foreigner can use and apply the language and its > petty > > > > > political di(e)ffereces used in your country better than you can. > > > > > > > Please TRY to stay in the context of your own political atmosphere. > > > > > > > I can have a social problem without it ever, in any concievable > way, > > > > being > > > > > considered a societal problem. > > > > > > > illiteracy pisses me off..... > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:26 PM, LimboIndo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Government is NOT a cure for any social ailments. It has NEVER > solved > > > > a > > > > > > > single social problem. It has never solved a single problem. > > > > > > > > Do you honestly believe this? This is your idea of a valid > argument, > > > > > > making completely ludicrous statements that aren't even in the > realm > > > > > > of reality? Government is a SOCIAL system INVENTED to solve > SOCIAL > > > > > > PROBLEMS. Solving social problems is the PURPOSE of Government. > Read > > > > > > the greats Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, all referred to a SOCIAL > CONTRACT. > > > > > > Crime, Safety, Order are all Social problems. > > > > > > > > so·cial (sshl) > > > > > > adj. > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > a. Living together in communities. > > > > > > b. Of or relating to communal living. > > > > > > c. Of or relating to human society and its modes of organization: > > > > > > social classes; social problems; a social issue. > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:42 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Again, you miss the points made as you are all wrapped up in > > > > semantics > > > > > > and > > > > > > > phraseology without bothering to hear the point made. > > > > > > > > > In a nutshell: > > > > > > > > > Government is NOT a cure for any social ailments. It has NEVER > solved > > > > a > > > > > > > single social problem. It has never solved a single problem. > > > > > > > > > Health care and access to it ARE social ailments. There is no > > > > "perfect" > > > > > > > system". Someone will always be left out. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:28 PM, LimboIndo < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We are debating the need for health care reform based on > health > > > > care. > > > > > > > > Not government waste, not government corruption, not crooked > > > > > > > > politicians, not if it rains too much in Seattle. > > > > > > > > > > As I've said before please argue if we need health care > reform > > > > based > > > > > > > > on our current health care system. If there is a need, then > the > > > > means > > > > > > > > to address it must be discussed. If you think our health care > > > > system > > > > > > > > is fine the way it is, I would ask you why you thought so. It > costs > > > > > > > > more than any other place in the world, it is no better than > > > > average > > > > > > > > based on rankings of World Health Orginizations, and its > current > > > > lack > > > > > > > > of universal coverage potentially exposes the broader > population to > > > > > > > > epidemics. Not to mention a healthier work force is better > for our > > > > > > > > economy. > > > > > > > > > > *Not directed at you frank, but I wish everyone would look up > two > > > > very > > > > > > > > important terms: "Red Herring, and Straw Man" > > > > > > > > > > Please stop making these types of arguments, they are > fallacious in > > > > > > > > there composition and not valid. Please make valid arguments. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 8:14 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Surely you don't think that the Government does not > commit > > > > wasteful > > > > > > > > spending? > > > > > > > > > > > Of course not and that's the point. Fraud and waste are not > going > > > > > > away > > > > > > > > > anytime soon. Too many people who make policy have their > hands in > > > > the > > > > > > > > > cookie jar. Yet you fail to account for this when you > argue; "If > > > > we > > > > > > > > > can get everyone Health Care without more taxes, without > > > > healthcare > > > > > > > > > quality going down and without healthcare costs going up, > what is > > > > the > > > > > > > > > problem?" At the end of the day you guys keep forgetting > > > > *someone* > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > to pay for this. If you think the government will be able > to > > > > achieve > > > > > > > > > healthcare nirvana without raising taxes then I have a > bridge to > > > > sell > > > > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 3:40 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Fraud and waste, emphasis on waste. Surely you don't > think that > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Government does not commit wasteful spending? Why haven't > they > > > > done > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > yet? Who knows? Most likely Politicians afraid to rock > the boat > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > stop pandering to swing voters, or politicians with > millions or > > > > > > > > > > hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations > from > > > > > > insurance/ > > > > > > > > > > medical companies (like most of the ones trying to the > block > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > reform). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 12:45 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we can get > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone Health Care without more taxes, without > healthcare > > > > > > quality > > > > > > > > > > > > going down and without healthcare costs going up, > what is > > > > the > > > > > > > > problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds great, now prove it can be done. The CBO doesn’t > seem > > > > to > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > it will work. Common sense says it won’t work. A > significant > > > > > > portion > > > > > > > > > > > of the funding supposedly will come from the > elimination of > > > > fraud > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > waste in the current system. Exactly how that will be > done is > > > > > > still a > > > > > > > > > > > black box secret and one that most believe can’t be > done. And > > > > if > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > can be done, why isn’t it being done today? After all, > the > > > > > > biggest > > > > > > > > > > > single complaint with the current system is cost, and > if you > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > eliminate fraud and waste you can reduce cost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 12:16 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to Plain'ol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on what you mean by "efficient?" It is > dangerous > > > > to > > > > > > > > confuse > > > > > > > > > > > > "efficiency" with "what is best for the American > people." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to MJ-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What reforms have Government instituted thus far? > This is > > > > the > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal of a major (emphasis major)reform of health > care > > > > > > > > instituted > > > > > > > > > > > > by the Government that has ever been proposed, to my > > > > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to the snippet about socialist, > government > > > > etc... > > > > > > > > > > > > It would appear Mr. Bastiat confuses a Democratic > Society > > > > and > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > other Society. In Democracy the people are the > government. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it seems both of you have danced around the > question. > > > > "If > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone Health Care without more taxes, without > healthcare > > > > > > quality > > > > > > > > > > > > going down and without healthcare costs going up, > what is > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > problem?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
