O/T: What's Next?

Page 3 of 10  


And, that's exactly what I said. To get that free health care in the US, you have to be poor. I repeated it more than once. Try reading a little closer.

That I certainly don't agree with. *Most* people as you state are not rich, but of middle income. A few serious brushes with the US medical system and there's every chance their middle income status is in jeopardy.

Ahh, I see, you're stuck on "wealthy people". Most people are NOT WEALTHY. Typical money grubbing outlook. If you've got money, then screw everybody else. As long as you can pay for what you need, then everybody else can go to hell. Absolutely zero social conscience just as long at your needs are looked after. Very selfish of you.

So tell me Tim. Have you ever in your life had unprotected sex? Not once? Have you ever eaten a Big Mac? No? You've never eaten a bag of potato chips or had a beer? I realize you're as pure as they come and society has no one except itself to blame. But, I have to ask, exactly how much hypocritical bullshit do you expect people to believe?

And that's your problem. You're absolutely convinced that everyone who supports socialized healthcare is looking for a freebie. You *know without a doubt* that there's nobody out there who has consideration for others besides themselves.
Selfishness is your highest ideal and you live by might is right. Common ideals of many citizens of the US. All the current financial woes of those financial institutions that failed in the US are a direct result of that kind of greedy outlook and now it's starting to bite you in the butt big time.
Enjoy!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

So, let me get this right. You have a *right* to keep what you've earned AND a simultaneous *right* to healthcare, even if others have to pay for it. IOW, it is the job of other people to ensure your middle class lifestyle is not compromised. Is that correct?

You're the one advocating a "screw everybody else" scheme not me. I advocate that everyone maintain title to that which they have earned legitimately. You advocate a system wherein other people are forced to pay for what you want. Lovely.

It is not selfish to object to having your wallet looted or being robbed at the point of a government gun. It takes a particular kind of dishonesty to try and paint this kind of theft as noble, but you're sure good at it.

I never claimed to have never done something irresponsible. But I do not advocate the use of government force to steal from you to may for my mistakes ... and that's the difference between us.

They are. Socialized healthcare punishes the healthy/responsible to the benefit of the ill/irresponsible and it does so using force - the force of government. It is dishonest and immoral.

You, of course, care so much about others that your "consideration" involves giving yourself permission to steal from your fellow citizens. Bravo.

My highest ideal is integrity. It is dishonest to steal from one citizen, give it to another, and then try and claim some imaginary moral high ground.

The current "financial woes" are not just those of the US, they are global and they have a common cause, and it is indeed greed. It is the greed of the rank and file citizens around the world who insist on things they have not earned being their "right" and use their respective governments to loot other citizens to get what they want. The current financial problems showed up in the banks only because that's where the money is moved, but at its core, this is payday for the socialism/communism you adore so much.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When you pay insurance premiums, you have the 'right' to have whatever fixed if you've paid your premiums (either direct or via direct pay- cheque (tax) withdrawal.
In the automotive version, many people pay to fix my car if my damage exceeds the total premiums I have paid.
I suppose the difference lies in the area of what a doctor is allowed to charge for a certain product...but that is ultimately his/her choice to belong to that system. The autobody guy isn't regulated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

There is another big difference: With socialist healthcare of the sort found in Canada and elsewhere, even if you have *never* paid a premium, you get to make claims against the system. If people choose to band together to spread risk via an insurance mechanism, there is absolutely no problem. When they are *forced* to do so AND forced to pay for people who never contributed a dime, this is known as ... er .... fraud.
I was born in Canada but never lived there full time for any long period. Suppose I moved back and retired there, having never paid a penny of Canadian taxes. Is it morally OK that I should reap the benefits of the healthcare and elder care system in place there? Again, these are the kinds of problems innate to wealth redistribution schemes.

All of whom voluntarily participate in the insurance system. Moreover, there are many insurers competing for your business thereby providing the best possible rates to the lowest risk customers. This eeeeeeevil market behavior helps keep a cap on premiums in a way no government thug ever could.

Sure he/she is. Autobody prices are "regulated" by what the insurance company is willing to pay for a particular bit of work. The distinction here though, is that the entire process is *voluntary*. You don't *have* to pay comprehensive insurance on any car you own outright (though most states here require liability before you can get on the road as a protection for others - even there, though, they do no mandate *who* insures, only that you be insured).
Contrast this with socialist healthcare. There is one provider, and there is no competition for lowest price, best service, or highest quality care. The only "option" is whether you want to be in the medical business or not. Once you decide to do so, you are forced to place this perverse game of stealing from some to give to others. Worse still, since there is always more demand for healthcare than there is supply, the limited supply is forcibly redistributed to the entire population without regard to their personal behaviors or willingness to pay. The result is that most people (everyone except the nominal poor) see a *decrease* in the quality, efficiency, and speed of care.
In short, it's a deal done strictly by government coercion and it's a system that causes most people to be served more poorly than they would otherwise be. In the mean time, the real answer to care for the poor - incenting the rest of us to help them on a voluntary charitable basis - gets tossed in the wastebasket because private charity is something the political critters cannot use to their personal benefit and ambition.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All those people get paid and paid well. They enjoy an exalted position in our society both monetarily and socially. They just don't get paid to your greedy standards. The poor trump nothing.

Wrong again. It's impossible to argue the point because you're entirely incapable of the difference between the giving of health care and the giving of a physical object like a car. To you, they're both the same when it comes to value and that's why you're emotionally and logically unequipped to differentiate between the two. That makes you an asshole. I'm not calling you a name, I'm just stating a fact.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Which they *earned* by working and studying hard, only to discover that the dishonest mob (aka "The Public") have decided that they get to determine just how rewarded the individual should be for all that hard work. It is nothing short of mob rule.

Sure they do. They get to benefit from something they do not have to earn. Their rights become more important than those who are not poor, who *do* have to pay for what they want.

Neither are "given". Both have to be earned by someone. People of your philosophical persuasion love to ignore this little fact. You just want someone other than the person who actually earned it to have use of it. Using your logic, I should pay for a car and you should be able to drive it anytime you like.

There is no difference in principle. Both require human time and effort to create. Both require the application of skill. You want to elevate one over the other for no defensible reason other than you like being in charge and telling everyone else what the owe you.

No, your still name calling - it's the last resort of a completely failed argument.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:26:52 -0500, Upscale wrote:

Tim will never get that point.
Nobody in Canada or other countries with "socialized" medicine goes bankrupt from medical bills.
It happens in the US with disturbing frequency. I'd say at least 2 or 3 times a year I read appeals for help in our local paper - not for indigents, but for middle class people who have exhausted their resources, and in some cases the resources of family members.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Larry Blanchard" wrote

But maybe not for long, eh? New York Times, Monday September 22, 2008:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res 01E1D91338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63
Besides, the 4,000 Canadian doctors and 6,000 nurses who've come here to practice in the last ten years, plus the mandated 20% reduction in the number of doctors graduating from medical schools, may well insure that an increasing number, who would rather be bankrupt and alive, will come to the US to get the "best medical care money can buy" ... and without having to wait for it?
IOW, TINSTAAFL, eh?
I too, wish there was ... but the bright side for us, since there was no guarantee issued granted with "life", is that it's the 21st century, not the 1st - 20th.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res 01E1D91338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63 Correction, that was a article published in 2000, not 2008, which the mast head reads... can't trust the NYT about anything.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very possible, but I'm willing to wager that the conditions will change in the not too distant future. Despite the cost of medical training that students pay out of their own pockets, a sizable portion of it is subsidized by the government. And then what happens, but many of them head down to the US solely for the profit motive.
I think that tide will be stemmed to a large degree. Taking on Tim's warped view of what consists of theft, it's stealing from our Canadian society to get their training and then going to the US for profit. At the very least, I can envision some type of mandated term of service in Canada before they're eligible to leave.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res 01E1D91338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63
i.e. At the point of taxman's gun.

You are making my point. The students got something they did not earn in the first place, and then "steal" it by applying elsewhere. This is the innate problem with all wealth redistribution schemes.

yes - theft begets theft - one kind of immoral action creates another.

Demonstrating yet another outcome of all socialist schemes - they lead to some form of slavery. Why not just let the students pay their own way and then use the education they paid for as they wish. There is no theft, no slavery, and no mob rule.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You really aren't too bright are you? If doctors had to pay their entire tuition without society's help (ie. the government), there would be extremely few of them around. Transfer that notion to most every profession and we'd still be living in the dark ages with a few powerful and educated while the rest living short lives in serfdom.
It's long been known that the highest level a society can attain is balanced by that level attained by the least disadvantaged. Whether you like it or not, society and it's values are the reason that you live at the level you do today. You might call much of it socialism, but it's been proven many times the greater number that benefit from those values the longer society will survive. What you advocate ends up in a pure dictatorship where the only value is might makes right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

May I suggest, "Economics In One Lesson" by Hazlitt, followed by "The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek, followed by "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand. These three giants should be able to purge your mind of such irredeemable silliness.

Known by whom and demonstrated how? (And no, you saying so, doesn't make it true.)

I live like I do today for three reasons:
1) I was granted health and family through no merit of my own. I am grateful to God.
2) I was granted access to a nation that places (or used to anyway) the individual ahead of the group. I am grateful to the USA.
3) I have worked my bottom off to come from poverty to the middle class. I am proud of my family, and happy I had the opportunity, but Sparky, I *earned* every bit of it.

Actually, your beloved collectivism is what leads to dictatorship, not my rational individualism.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I would suggest that additional gratitude might be appropriate - to those who contributed every single medical advance that made it possible for your parents' family lines to survive and converge to produce you.

If you're talking about the USA, then you declare yourself an ungrateful misfit. Yes we value the individual, but from our very beginnings we have recognized that the price of keeping our ideals is paid _always_ by individuals. The best summation I can think of at the moment is that this entire country expects you to, if the situation ever arose, throw yourself on the grenade that comes through the window to protect those around you. You only seem grateful when there's no cost to you.

From the way you whine, you show that not only do you not understand the magnificence of the gifts you have received - but that you are so clueless and conceited that you actually believe that a single lifetime might ever be enough to actually *earn* all the benefits bestowed upon you.

From the evidence of your words, your "rational individualism" is a delusion in which the only individual to be valued is yourself.
You live like you do today because more people than you could ever count created the global, cultural, societal, and community contexts within which you live your life.
I suspect your contribution is relatively microscopic.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

My progenitors largely made it to these shores without much, if any, medical care. They survived largely by grit and hard work. As recently as 40 years ago, a regular doctor visit was a dream in the corners of my family's lineage.
However, *I* have directly benefited from those aforementioned medical advances. Funny thing about that medicine - it came from *profit motivated* drug companies and doctors trying maximize their incomes. These are the very things that you collectivists decry, but they are the only mechanisms know to man (to date anyway) that actually work to produce innovation and real human progress.
But, no. We see - in this very thread - intellectual drooling complaining about doctors who make "too much" and medicine become a "business". Yeah, its really terrible. Lifespans are increasing, problems like heart disease, diabetes, many forms of cancer, congenital defects, and a a host of other problems that once killed people in the relative youth are now managed or even cured. But that's not good enough, is it? We have to make sure that the instruments of this progress - the doctors, nurses, researchers, scientists and drug companies are thwarted at every turn. Why? Because they make too much money. The fact that they're smarter, work harder, and are proportionally far greater contributors to all of our lives is *exactly* what collectivists hate because they themselves are no such thing and are incapable of any meaningful lives in their own right.

I shall do no such thing. It takes a particularly perverse misreading of US political and intellectual history to come to any such conclusion. The very foundations of this nation were built in opposition to the Leviathan of the state and to the promotion of the individual and his liberty. I can provide references if you doubt this. I can even explain the big words.

On this we agree - liberty isn't free and requires free citizens to be prepared to defend it. "No one wants to fight, but somebody has to know how." Unfortunately, it is not the threat from without that dooms us today. It is the cancerous collectivist perversion that characterizes today's political debate that will be our undoing. No terrorist, no armed enemy, no military assault will ever be as dangerous as the citizens demanding more "free" things from their own government. Our founders said as much.

You are deeply mistaken. If and when I were called upon to defend liberty by force or by argument I would do so. And that's what I am doing - the the most evident threat, the collectivist sewage that permeates our culture - needs to be exposed for the fraud and danger it represents to us all. But I wouldn't (and am not) doing it for the collective good you so adore. I would (and am) doing it because it is in my own self-interest to defend liberty. When millions of citizens do this - defend liberty in their own interest - you get a great and prosperous nation. When millions of citizens sit around demanding government rescue them from their own choices, the circumstances of their lives, the misfortunes that befall all of us, you get Soviet Russia.

I have only one lifetime. Whether it is sufficient to "earn" what I was given is irrelevant - I can't - no one can. But that doesn't automatically therefore demand that I sacrifice liberty on the altar of big government, collectivist drooling, and mindless self-sacrifice that is erected as the ideal. The greatest way to pay back my debt and show my gratitude is to leave a free society in my wake, not enfranchise the political classes as they buy votes by handing out money and goods taken my force and theft.

No, "rational individualism" is an individualism that recognizes that all of us cannot be free unless *each* of us is individually free. This means we produce law to thwart fraud, force, and threat, leaving each of us to act "rationally" in our own self interest in all other cases. Part of that self-interest is to *voluntarily* help each other as we are able. It is in none of our self-interest to outsource the job to a overweening government that takes from some to give to others in a blind, mechanical, and often evil way. But that takes brains, hard work, a moral center - qualities that the collectivists despise, because it thwarts their relentless quest for power.

This is largely false. I live like I do today because this is the one and only nation in recorded history that made individual liberty primary, and the state a servant of the individual. All collectivist enterprises throughout history devolved into despotic and oppressive rule by the few - at least the major ones did. It is only because the US was built on the primacy of the individual this has not yet happened here. Sadly, so many beneficiaries of this very system - like you - aren't happy with the results and want to institute the very collective schemes that have destroyed the lives of "more people than you could ever count."

As is yours. As is pretty much everyone's. But - like all apologists for collectivism - you skip to a bogus conclusion: "Since I can only do a very small bit as a free person, I shall sacrifice my liberty on the altar of the collective." The largest collectivist schemes in human history - the grand, eloquent (and evil) plans to collectivize society for the "common good", did not remotely contribute to the human experience what us free "microscopic" contributors have managed to do in something less than 300 years. That won't stop you though, will it? Instead of celebrating your individuality and liberty that makes it possible, you'll focus on your "microscopic" contribution, and decide that it's better to be a slave than to make that small contribution.
You don't like my ideas? Fine. Then you don't much like Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Paine, and De Tocqueville. They're not *my* ideas. They're the ideas of a bunch of brilliant Enlightenment-era thinkers, who had that bad habit of not trusting government much. That why they argued for the individual above the state, a small and limited government, rule of law, and personal responsibility. It's a modern tragedy that those of you who most benefit from this, dismiss them so flippantly because you need protection from yourselves.
Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, et al did not run around mumbling stupid platitudes like "It takes a village" or "If we can just save one child" or "It's for the greater good". They wrote in some great detail about the nature of a free nation begins with a free individual. Too bad they're so out of date these days ...
Viva La Revolucion Comrade - I hope you get exactly what you (and others here) are demanding - a complete subjugation of your liberty at the hands of the state. Oh, you don't know that's what you're asking for, but it is. I just hope to have checked out by then ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
<nothing of substance>
Well, you at least /sound/ like an over-schooled, under-educated navel-gazer who hopes to change what he doesn't like in the world by raving incoherently in a woodworking newsgroup.
Good luck with that...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Morris, I'd expected better of you than an ad hominem such as this -- as Tim points out, it's a sure sign that you know you can't debate the issue on its merits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 23, 7:22am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

..and so the Vulture lands on what he thinks is a wounded snack....but fails to see the trip-wire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Merits??? You're right - I can't.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.