"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com:
When one has grown up with violence, and has been a victim of violence, nobody else has any right *at all* to blither on as to how one's fears are "nothing more than phantoms".
I've heard all sorts of blither on as to how this one or that one would "never even touch a gun even if their life were threatened".
Well, all I can say is, all the people I knew who said that NEVER HAD their lives, or their loved ones' lives, threatened.
Pat wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Uh, there were no HMOs until fairly recently - i.e., IIRC, about 20 years ago.
I remember when Emergency Rooms were for *emergencies*, but people were not turned away from teh ER because of "overcrowding". I remember when you paid your physician directly - and none of them overcharged because then they'd never get any business. I also remember when peopel went into medicine because they wanted to be physicians - and even tho' the pay was decent, they still lived in the same town as "the little people", and you could call your doctor preety much any time of day or night if you had something serious going on. Yeah, there have been a lot of medical advances, and many of th enew procedures do cost a lot - it's a matter of specialized production of equipment, specialized training for professionals, an dso on. And yeah, pharmaceuticals ain't cheap, even if one stopped the blatant theft that goes on.
But part of the problem is that HMOs come between patients and physicians, to the detriment of both. Part of the problem is that the emphasis is not on wellness, but on trying to treat disease after it happens, rather than trying to do things that will prevent or at least mitigate disease. And partof th eproblemis that too much money is goign into bureaucracies (andinevitably getting lost) rather than goign directly to pay for services and research and so on.
IOW, there are waaaaay too many middlemen.
It'ssort of like buying peaches. If you go to the Farmer's Market and buy peaches from the grower, you pay less, and the grower make smore, because there aren't 7 layers of middlemen all taking a cut. It's not all that different, at least not in principle.
The problem with gov.t getting involved is that it adds layers of bureaucracy - middlemen - and each layer dilutes the funding. Adding even *more* gov.t (i.e. layers of bureaucracy) to the mix is only going to make things worse.
3D Peruna wrote in news:m1_bi.25$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe04.lga:
Just look at Johnson's "GreatSociety", i.e. Wellfare, i.e. the destruction of the Black family.
THe *intentions* were good, but, in the end, all the laws and rules and bureaucracy created a horrible mess that is *much* worse than the situation it was supposed to improve.
Unlike Don, I do think that gov.t, or at least, public institutions,
*can* do things to improve the lot of people, and yes, the gov.t *is* charged with "providing for the public good" or something like that (I forgot the exact phrase), however, politics involces so much diversion of monies into politicianslittle pet projects (and personal pockets...) that it is *excrutiatingly* easy for gov.t to completely foul things up.
A *good* gov.t would take all possible measures to minimize the resources used to administer (i.e., meddle in) any program.
Take student loans as an example. It ought to be straightforward: the gov.t will offer a low-rate loan to students so that they can attend college, and they can defer payback until they graduate and start working.
I had a student loan, and that's how it worked. I also paid it all back
- before it was due. I didn't know anyone in my graduating class who just defaulted for the hell of it. The rules eventually got so convoluted, tho', that efaulting became the norm, and the system became so over-governemntalized that it's now basically defunct.
I don't have any problem with student loans, then - they can and should be an investment in the future, *But* people who default need to be made to pay. Screw all of this "loan forgiveness" shit - you graduate, you pay - it's a contract. If you don't think you can deal with it, don't ener into it. It is a priviledge, not an entitlement, and it needs to have responsibilities attached to it.
The problem with gov.t programs is that they usually end up being th erefuge of the irresponsible and the willfully-incompetent. Notice the word "wilfully". THere are some people who are mentally handicapped, and need assistance so as to be productive - I have no qualms about paying for group homes for challenged people so that they can do basic jobs during th eday, and then have a safe place to go to at night. But I have no patience whatsoever for people who are just plain lazy and "don't feel like" making any sort of contrinution to society. IN those cases, my opinion is, if they don't want to take any responsibility for themselves, that istheir choice and nobody else should be forced to take care of 'em. IOW, ther eis a difference between *need*, and laziness. Unfortunately, gov.t programs cannot differentiate between the two, and lazy people are usually much better at taking advantage of those programs, than needy people are at getting help.
ALso, I think it is vital to remember that mega-corporations and monopolies exist *because* of gov.t, NOT in spite of it. One can list all sorts of areas where the so-called "private sector" has completely screwed the pooch (i.e., the "common man", whom they see as dogs). But "the corporate sector" is really not the same thing as "the private sector". Remember that mega-corporations are are identical to mega- governemnt - i.e., mega-bureaucracy.
THe problem is not small/limited personal business or direct governemnt - the evil is *bureaucracy*.
Nothing can be solved until people learn to differentiate between bureaucracy, and small business/limited-direct governemnt.
"Edgar" wrote in news:467046c3$0$24191$ snipped-for-privacy@free.teranews.com:
You're mixing the issues.
Don is not saying that "equal access to healthcare is bad", he is saying that "the forceable insertion of HMO and gov.t bureaucracies into teh doctor-patient relationship is bad".
Prejudice (be it racial or other) is/was in no way eliminated just because gov.t got involved in health care.
But you're mixing two different points. This is not about "turning back the clock across the board", this i sabout reducing bureaucratic waste, and getting teh middlemen out from between health care providers, and health care recipients.
Regardelss of your color (or religion or gender or sexual preference or size or whatever), the fact is that currently, if your physician determines you should have, oh, a colonoscopy or a mammogram, there is a bureuacracy acting as a gatekeeper standing between you, and what your physician prescribes, and you either will or will not be *permitted* to follow the doctor's orders based upon a bunch of statistics and whatnot as interpreted by someone who quite likely lives a thousand miles away from you and your physician.
And if you believe that bureaucracy is going to go to any effort to make sure that your case is not going to be judged inequitably, well......
I'm personally *sick* of all of this childish name-calling about who is or is not delusional. Good grief =>:-p
EVERYBODY is "delusional" in one way or another. Get over it. What matters is (1) trying to get the facts and (2) trying to avoid trampling people's rights.
I'm not spouting about anyone who owns guns, in this case Don has said numerous times why he owns guns and thinks everyone else should. I'm not going on about some pop theory, I am going off what has been explicitly stated here in these forums.
Then again are you saying you have no phantom fears?
I stand by my point, GOVERNMENT (not beauracracy) has worked towards (and is bound by) equality, and people have fought long and hard to get that equality which has not come easy. To say that things were better back then because the government was not involved ignores the thousands of people who were NOT getting the same level of care because of inequality. If we have to bring others down so that others may FINALLY be equal, so be it. Since then we should have been working on bringing everyone back up, but instead inequality continues. I agree 100% with reducing bureaucratic waste but that waste is not the same as what the govenrment should be.
You yourself are confusing the issue. Government is not the same as bureaucratic (I always have trouble spelling that one). You can have one without the other, and we should be working towards eliminating beauracracy. I agree it is the worst thing about this government and something I feel should be eliminated if we want to fix anything.
As long as Don is here, your going to keep getting "sick" of it. I only resort to what is thrown at me. I've tried and tried with the level headed discussion, but this is the only type of argument he seems to understand...YOU get over it.
Taken out of context like that of course it sounds horrible, like the cunt you are, you can twist my words all you want, but it doesn't mean a damn thing near what your shit for brains thinks it means.
Unless you really do prefer the past where minorities were treated like second class citizens, you can take it for all I care, there are plenty of countries out there where people would happily slit your throat for being "different".
But I did make a mistake (which you jumped at the chance to flame about) as that part you underlined should have read "and thinks everyone who doesn't own one is a douchebag/idiot/insert name of the week" Have a nice day shit for brains.
Actually no, I am not lying, I may have made a mistake, but I am certainly not lying. You repeatedly called me an idiot for not wanting to "defend" myself from some phantom fears of yours. Google doesn't seem to be working for me or else I would show you. No use reasoning with shit for brains.
Blah blah blah...duh here let me use someone elses words to try and discuss with people.
Um, please show me WHERE exactly I have ever said I don't want to live under my own rules??? In fact I get derided every time I explain I have no problems paying for taxes to help other people etc, etc. If I wanted to own a gun, I would happily take a training course, just like I did trying to get my drivers license. Your limbaugh sound bites won't help you here.
And on the other hand I have consistently shown how pure socialism is just as bad as pure capitalism or anarchy, and again your shit for brains never has a decent answer to any of that either, just spouting off bullshit and flaming because someone is taking your toys (oh noes they stepped on my lawn I will kill the bastards!). When your challenged all you do is come back with flaming...the defenition of a troll.
I really don't know what sort of mental deficiency you have there Don, but it's starting to get irritating. A little disclosure would help, starting with the types of meds you're on.
Ok lets hear it, what's the next insult going to be? I know it's coming because you have nothing of substance to say. Here let me help you..."Duh...little doodz, go watch your tee vee and leavez us alonz, or sumfink"
After I plonked him I realized that most of the group activity is Don proffering some redneck opinion, and then the group responding to it. I think Don's problem is that he's *not* on meds. He talks like a depressed person. I'm not a collector, but I've met a few. He should heck out the state of modern pharmaceuticals... with a doctor, of course.
Equality is a myth. It always has been. Nobody is born "equal". Some are born smart, some dumb, some blind, some deaf, some crippled, you name it. Some born in the USA to affluent parents, other born into starvation in the Andes. Life is not equal. Nor will it ever by and to think that "equality" is a laudable goal shows a lack of understanding of human nature.
Governments cannot and should not try to create "equality". They shouldn't even try for "fairness." If you want to think that "equality" is granted or created by government, go back and reading the Federalist papers, and the writings of the Founders. The only thing we have equal is the opportunity to pursue our happiness without interference from government. It's the opportunity to pursue happiness that is to be protected and guarded, not the happiness itself. As long as our pursit does not infringe on the natural rights* of others, then we're good to go.
*Natural Rights
formatting link
Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.
While you may be right about equality in general, equality in particular should be a goal, that is what I believe. Specifically, with regards to exactly what you said, nobody should be given less of a chance to pursue their happiness. For example, I believe gays have just as much right to marry each other and therefore pursue their happiness (or unhappiness as the case may be) just like everyone else. Or an even simpler idea that everyone should be familiar with, is the right of women to vote, or of not forcing people to the back of the bus based on color. I understand certain things can be taken too far, and I am always the first to lambaste the extremists, and call for moderation, but can you honestly say anything would have changed regarding civil rights if the people didn't take action through the government. Can you honestly say if we left things to "market forces" that slavery would have worked itself out over time?
Do not ever forget that the 2nd Amendment is about our ability to defend ourselves from the GOVERNMENT itself. This is the primary reason for this amendment. In fact, the rest of the arguments about the 2nd Amendment are plain stupid because they avoid the real point altogether.
About as long as it took you to form a thought, which means I was trying all day to get google groups to work.
You know I really don't want ot bring up the whole VA shooting thread all over again, so think whatever you want to think, I don't give a shit.
I don't see how that is even possible, I have to completely disagree with you there. The only thing market forces would have done is change the price of a slave.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.