nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

Re: Question for Health care reform opponents

Von: mike3 (mike4ty4@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 19.04.2010 09:52
Message-ID: <18bf09f2-9ec4-4c6a-b69f-d50c9b399886@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.politics
On Apr 19, 12:02 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e0482e21-034e-49fb-9d70-177288afc...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 9:38 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > >
<aa0ecb48-e25c-44d0-b46b-5638d830b...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > That's the whole point. If it's not you doing it, if it's not YOU
> > > hampering them, then there's no other relevant question left to ask.
>
> > So if, say, the government, or a company, or something is hampering
> > them,
> > we should be utterly silent about the problem, do and say NOTHING, and
> > just
> > let it take care of itself?
>
> > > > And why is that the wrong question?
>
> > > As the poet once said: Don't ask me, ask your sword.
>
> > What's that from?
>
>   this is accord
>    don't ask me
>     ask your sword
>
>       ---Dennis M. Hammes, Haiku 589
>
>
>
> > <snip>
> > > Heh. Told you it was late.
>
> > > In this instance, there's really no substantive difference. The syste
m
> > > is hampering me now, it was hampering me yesterday, and it'll hamper 
me
> > > tomorrow. It hampers rich people and poor people, alike. The beautifu
l
> > > and ugly. The smart and the dumb.
>
> > > Entropy is like that.
>
> > > Doesn't matter what you do, by the way, Entropy will eventually win.
>
> > > But don't let that get you down. It's waaaay better than the alternat
ive.
>
> > So if it's keeping you way under average, then what?
>
> That's where you keep getting lost.
>
> You can't define "average." Even if you arrive at a definition, you
> can't show relevance for being "under," or "over".
>

How do you know it can't be proven? Have you tried it all? Has
anyone tried to prove/disprove this theory?

> Entropy keeps you from being a great many things.
>
> Eventually, it keeps you from even being alive.
>
> None of that's important. What's important is what you do in the mean
> time.
>
>
>
> > <snip>
> > > If that's true, then the really important question is: So who's stopp
ing
> > > YOU?
>
> > Because right now, I don't have the means, as of yet, to do any
> > serious
> > help. Right now, this is theoretical discussion.
>
> What means do you suppose such a venture requires?
>
> And how, exactly, do you propose to accumulate those "means?"
>

I don't know. If I did, I'd have done it.

>
>
> > > > To
> > > > do otherwise, I'd think, is selfishness.
>
> > > There's nothing inherently wrong with selfishness. Or selflessness, f
or
> > > that matter.
>
> > I disagree.
>
> That's not good enough.
>
> If you can't show that selfishness is inherently wrong, then you can't.
>
> But we'll assume that it's because you're incorrect.
>

Proof?

>
>
> > > > If someone is in trouble, and
> > > > I
> > > > know it, and I have the ability to help, and I decide not to since 
I
> > > > think
> > > > I should spend it on mySELF, then I am SELFish, and that is WRONG!
>
> > > You can't show that selfishness is wrong--it's just something you
> > > thought you heard once--maybe your priest told you that a long time a
go?
>
> > > Consider this: It's a cold, dark night. There's a driving, freezing r
ain
> > > coming down. It's been pouring like this for hours. As you sit by you
r
> > > cozy fire, sipping your cognac, reading a book of some forgotten lore
...
> > > and you keep thinking you hear a cry outside on your stoop. Eventuall
y,
> > > you get up to investigate...and there on your icy front porch, drippi
ng
> > > wet, ragged, boney ribs and all, is the most forlorn looking cat you'
ve
> > > ever seen.
>
> > > What do you do? Why, you open your front door wide and coax the poor
> > > little thing in, that's what you do! You go to the refrigerator, pour
> > > some milk in a saucer, open a can of tuna fish and put it on a dinner
> > > plate, and you sit there in your kitchen and watch the poor famished
> > > thing gobble it all down.
>
> > > You know full well that you've now got that cat for life.
>
> > Who says I have to keep the cat forever? Why can't it be given away to
> > someone
> > else if I can't take care of it?
>
> Why would you traumatize the poor little thing that way?
>
> You've never "owned" a cat, have you?
>

So you're saying that it's selfish either way?

You also have to remember that if you take in the cat and do care
for it, you have to make sacrifices, too, be they time, money, or
both.
Is that selfish?

>
>
> > > Proud of yourself? You needn't be. You shouldn't be.
>
> > > Really and truly, you've only committed a very selfish act.
>
> > > You see, you'd never be able to live with yourself if you hadn't brou
ght
> > > it inside. You'd have thought about it as you lay tossing and turning
> > > that night in bed...never quite getting to sleep...still listening fo
r
> > > its cries. Worrying if they'd suddenly stop.
>
> > So then if I did the opposite, then what?
>
> > > You would have remembered turning it away for a long, long time to co
me.
>
> > > A rational, selfish person must first and foremost be able to get alo
ng
> > > with...well, his self.
>
> > What about this case, though? Suppose you are hungry. Someone else
> > nearby is hungry. There's only one meal available. One has to go
> > hungry,
> > the other doesn't. You can give the meal or eat it. You eat it all up.
> > Then
> > what?
>
> You're talking about lifeboat rules, of course.
>
> In a lifeboat, you share what there is of the meal, even if it's nothing
> more than a part of a squished Snickers bar.
>

So then I take 80% and give the other guy 20%. After all, I'M the most
important,
he isn't. If you were in the other's shoes, would you consider this
fair?

> You won't survive any other scenario.
>
>
>
> > Or you take advantage of someone else's whatever to benefit you, or
> > you just hoard everything even if it could be used to help someone
> > else,
> > to better yourself, and the others don't get that benefit out of
> > whatever
> > you hoarded. And so on. This is what I mean by "selfishness" and
what
> > I
> > think is "bad".
>
> You can't define "take advantage of," so that it would make sense to
> anyone else but you.
>
> You feel that you could define it, but you can't. You certainly can't
> show inherent evil.
>
> Don't feel bad, even Dickens couldn't, and he spent most of his life
> pretending to write about it.
>

So then I suppose you couldn't define it, either. If NOBODY can define
ANY of the crap being argued here, why bother?

> Let's say you just graduated college. Let's further say that your
> parents footed the bill. What they couldn't pay, you made up with
> student loans and PELL grants.
>
> You "took advantage of," didn't you?
>

Yes. And those things were *meant* to be taken advantage of -- they
are there for that very purpose! Of course, with loans, you have to
pay
it back.

If, however, someone has some kind of fault or failing, and you go and
use that failing to get something, doesn't that just seem wrong? This
I believe is closer to what I'm talking about. If you had a
shortcoming, and
I used it to my advantage, how would you feel? Of course, neither of
us
has yet come up with a formal definition of "advantage" so I suppose
you
can't answer that either.

> Think about all that money; many tens of thousands of dollars. Who the
> hell do you think you are, anyway?
>
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Chum, I've been there--more than once...I don't have to imagine anyth
ing
> > > about your scenario--it ain't hypothetical at all to me.
>
> > > Sometimes I had a helping hand, and sometimes I couldn't find one
> > > anywhere on earth.
>
> > > Finally, I remembered what I should have known all along: If I ever n
eed
> > > a helping hand, I never need look any further than the end of own my
> > > right arm.
>
> > > "The harder I work, the luckier I get."
> > >                ---Samuel Goldwyn
>
> > Then how can some people go and work real hard yet get little pay?
> > How does that happen?
>
> The universe doesn't guarantee you a living wage, son. It doesn't even
> guarantee you a life.
>

No, it doesn't. The UNIVERSE doesn't guarantee you anything.

> 156,000 people died today. Where's the "fairness" in /that/?
>

That's just it. The universe need not be "fair". WE, on the other
hand,
have at least some level of capability for fairness. Don't you think
we should
exercise it?

> Perhaps you're an American. Americans have this silly notion about
> egalitarianism. They hear "all men are created equal," and they jump to
> the dangerous conclusion that "all men are equal, and if they're not,
> The Man must be holding them down."
>

What does this phrase mean? It means that people have certain basic
rights and respects that cannot be taken away. It does not mean they
are
the "same".

> The Man /is/ holding you down, of course. But he's only that guy you see
> in the shaving glass.
>

There's the rub! If it entirely depended on them, then there should be
NOBODY
that works real hard yet gets little pay. It shouldn't matter what the
system is,
anyone should be able to do anything.

>
>
> > > My problems aren't your problems. They weren't then, and they aren't
> > > now. You stick your nose into my affairs, and you just might get it
> > > bloodied.
>
> > > If I come up to beg you for some coin, I figure you'll either come
> > > across with a few bucks, or you won't. Either way--which ever you do,
it
> > > just makes you a statistic to me--nothing more, nothing less. Sometim
es
> > > the marks give some up, sometimes they don't. Nothing personal. Besid
es,
> > > there's those rich-looking tourists just getting off that bus over
> > > there...
>
> > > > In this hypothetical situation, would you have no objection to my
> > > > behavior?
>
> > > Even in some similar non-hypothetical situation, I wouldn't particula
rly
> > > object to your behavior.
>
> > At least you're honest then and not hypocritical. Whew.
>
> I'm a Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Of course I'm a liar and a hypocrite.
>
> What ever gave you the notion that I'm /not/?
>

I was referring to that particular instance.

> > > I've got my own problems. It's not my job to judge you.
>
> > > Thank God.
>
> > > > If so, *why*, in light of your word?
>
> > > > If we have the ability to help (ability here equals knowing what to
> > > > do, how
> > > > to do it, having the necessary physical resources if any are requir
ed,
> > > > and
> > > > anything else needed to do what we know we have to do), I also tend
to
> > > > think we have the responsibility to help. If we are confronted with
> > > > someone
> > > > in need, and we have the ability to do something, I think the
> > > > responsibility
> > > > to help becomes even higher.
>
> > > > I don't believe in selfishness.
>
> > > Its existence evidently doesn't rely on your beliefs.
>
> > By I "don't believe" in it, I don't mean it doesn't exist, I mean I
> > don't believe that
> > it is right and good.
>
> People believe lot's of things, don't they?
>
> Perception isn't reality.
>
> Reality is reality.
>

And your beliefs are just that, beliefs. "Reality" doesn't give a damn
hoot about them either.

>
>
> > > > > But don't be too surprised if they bite it.
>
> > > > That can happen, but who said doing what's right is going to be
> > > > painless?
> > > > If anything, we should have to try to see who is likely to bite and
> > > > take
> > > > steps to protect ourselves from that.
>
> > > > > You see, in almost every case imaginable, you're not qualified
to
> > > > > determine "fortune."
>
> > > > So then you propose to do, nothing at all?
>
> > > You can't determine who needs help and who doesn't.
>
> > So then you'd propose to do nothing, right? No matter how much
> > capability we have to help, let's not use it, since it's unknowable
> > who
> > needs help.
>
> There's only one way you'll EVER have "much capability to help."
>
> And what's that one way? Class?...Class?...Anyone...?
>

I wasn't talking about ways to get capability, but what to do with
that
capability when we have it. You say one cannot determine who needs
help and who doesn't. Therefore, the capability is worthless under
this view. Thus, why bother trying to acquire it?

>
>
> > > You may THINK you can, but that'd just make you an ass.
>
> > > Yehuda was a young man from a wealthy family, but he seems to have ta
ken
> > > upon himself a vow of poverty. Whenever he would get some money, he'd
> > > immediately give it away to some poor or sick sod he happened to run
> > > across in the streets.
>
> > > Perpetually broke, he often went hungry himself, and was just as ofte
n
> > > reduced to begging for food.
>
> > > When he joined Yeshua's band, Yeshua thought he needed to teach Yehud
a a
> > > lesson about giving away all your money. As they traveled Yisrael,
> > > Yeshua had the whole band pool their money into a single purse. He ma
de
> > > Yehuda its keeper.
>
> > > For the first time since his vow of poverty, Yehuda now had the
> > > perplexing problem of giving away money to the poor, and yet seeing t
o
> > > it that the Rabbi's band had enough to live on.
>
> > So why just hoard it all for oneself and nobody else?
>
> Because it's YOURS.
>
> You can't give it away any more than you can give away your diploma.
>

You can't give away the money?

>
>
> > Also, I'm not a Christian and haven't studied the Bible very much, so
> > am
> > not all familiar with the story.
>
> Judas Iscariot was the keeper of the purse.
>
> Interesting character. Even more reviled than Richard Nixon. You should
> look him up sometime.
>
>
>
> > > Ironic, is it not, that he would later become famous for betraying th
e
> > > Rabbi for thirty sheckels?
>
> > > > Don't bother trying to help
> > > > one's fellow man. Interesting. And who do you propose is qualified?
> > > > And
> > > > why not get them in there to go and determine it? If nobody, then
> > > > what,
> > > > back to the no-help idea?
>
> > > The best way to help is to demonstrate. Always. If there's a problem,
> > > and you have a solution to it--then demonstrate.
>
> > > Since the tyrannical communism of the clan and the tribe began to end
> > > about 100,000 years ago, you've become extremely wealthy.
>
> > *I* did not exist 100,000 years ago. Human beings, as a whole, though,
> > or various groups of them, did this.
>
> You existed 100,000 years ago, of course. However, I understand your
> reasons for denying, or for being confused about it all.
>

No, _I_ did not exist. How did I? Now if you understand the reasons
why
I don't get it, then you should follow that up with an explanation.
Where is it?

>
>
> > > You finally stopped living for the tribe, and you began living for
> > > yourself. And now you're rich beyond your wildest dreams.
>
> > > And so is the tribe.
>
> > > You don't realize just how wealthy you are, of course, because you ca
n't
> > > remember back that far.
>
> > Yeah, because I didn't _exist_ back then.
>
> Part of you did. You wouldn't be who you are if you didn't.
>

Well, some of the genes did, as did the atoms, but I myself did not.
I suppose there is some kind of intriguing metaphysical position you
propose here. That everything is a manifestation of some kind of
invariant "things" that exist from and to all eternity. I'd be curious
to
know what your metaphysics is.

>
>
> > > Since you don't understand, you think self
> > > interest is to be abhorred, avoided, demonized. These things must be
> > > keeping you from being as comfortable and happy as the next guy.
>
> > > Per capita Real World GDP was about $100/year from 100,000 BP to abou
t
> > > 1,000 BP. After that it doubles to about $200/year, and doubles again
> > > about AD 1800. From there, World GDP sky rockets--with only an
> > > occasional speed bump here or there. Now it doubles about every 17 ye
ars.
>
> > > A rising tide floats all boats.
>
> > >http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/realworldgdp.jpg
>
> > > From: Estimates of World GDP, One Million BC -
> > > Present,http://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf
>
> > > Now, even your ghetto poor are more wealthy than the greatest demigod
at
> > > Lascaux.
>
> > Which goes to show that "poverty" is relative to the age one lives
in.
>
> "The poor you will always have among you..."
>
> > Back
> > in those days, though, that small amount (or whatever its equivalent
> > would
> > be in that time) was enough to get them what they need. Nowadays, $100
> > won't even get you the barest essentials of life, at least not in this
> > country
> > (USA). Back then though, people still managed to get food. They had to
> > do it in a lot more "hands-on" way but they still did it.
>
> They managed to get food then.
>
> Now, your ghetto poor are experiencing an epidemic of obesity. They more
> than manage to get food. And so do their dogs and cats.
>
> How is it that even your dogs and cats are obese?
>

Well, for one, "junk" foods tend to be cheaper than healthy ones. That
might be part of it. Back in the days (most of the last 1 million
years),
we didn't have all that crap.

>
>
> > > Even the cats and dogs in your ghettos are well fed. Even the pigeons
> > > and rats have clogged arteries.
>
> > > > Again, I bring up my previous example. There you are in that hardsh
ip,
> > > > and there I am walking by, despite having all the ability to help. 
And
> > > > you ask for the help, and I'll say "I'm not qualified to
determine
> > > > your
> > > > 'fortune' so I shouldn't help you.
>
> > > You should first and foremost help YOU, Yehuda.
>
> > And don't bother helping anyone else?
>
> Stop putting ascii in my post. I didn't say anything about what you
> should bother to do later.
>
> You can't help anyone else until you first help yourself.
>

No, but once you have ability, once you _gain_ that ability,
then you have _responsibility_ to use it to benefit other human
beings.

> Don't blame me, I didn't make up the rules.
>
>
>
> > Here's a big Q: What does it mean when you keep trying and applying
> > for
> > jobs again and again but keep getting rejection letters, without even
> > telling
> > you what they didn't like? What does that mean you are doing wrong?
>
> It doesn't mean that you're doing a damn thing wrong. Or, it could
> indicate that your skills are completely unsalable.
>

If one isn't doing a darn thing wrong, then how does this jive
with the idea that "you" must be the problem?

> Which is to say, those rejection letters are pretty damn
> meaningless...unless you create a fiction to give them meaning.
>

So then how do you propose they get a good enough job?

> There was an old street car conductor (and jack of many trades) who
> finally opened his own restaurant in a small town. Business was okay
> until the highway commission decided to bypass the little town with the
> new freeway it was putting in. Business dried up, and pretty soon he was
> forced to auction it off. IIRC, he was then a journeyman for a power
> company for a few years and then he turned 65 and had to retire.
>
> When he got his first Social Security check, he realized the hell that
> was awaiting him the rest of his days.
>
> But what could he do? What did he have? No real profession. No money. No
> credit. But he /did/ have his grandma's Chicken recipe that a lot of
> people seemed to like.
>
> He got in his car and traveled the south. He'd stop in a restaurant and
> ask to see the manager or owner. Then he'd make a pitch for his recipe.
> He'd challenge the owner to a cook off--if the manager liked his
> chicken, he could put it on his menu, and our salesman only asked for a
> nickel a plate sold.
>
> Of course he got turned down. He and the manager would eat the results
> of the cook off, of course, and many times this was his only meal that
> day. Not a total loss. But he was turned down because the owner wasn't
> impressed.
>
> How many times was he turned down? 100 times? Yes. 300 times? Yes. 500
> times? Yes. He was turned down over 500 times.
>
> In fact, he was turned down just over 1,000 times before someone finally
> took him up on his offer.
>
> When would /you/ have given up? 659? 937?
>
> You may have guessed that that old street car conductor and failed
> restauranteur was none other than Harlan Sanders.
>
> Some people call him Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame.
>
>
>
> > > That's the only real way to help any of us out in this veil of tears.
>
> > > > Nobody else should be helped since
> > > > we can't determine if anyone is unfortunate and thus in need of hel
p.
>
> > > If they beg, you can either give them some change from your pocket, o
r
> > > not.
>
> > > Either way, you haven't "helped" them a damn little bit.
>
> > Well, giving to beggars isn't necessarily the only way to help or even
> > the
> > right way. However, real help requries one to be less selfish, e.g.
> > if it means sacrificing anything or doing any sort of hard work to
> > benefit the other with equal or less benefit to the self.
>
> Don't work for my benefit, Mother Teresa--what you're talking about is
> voluntary slavery--and that's just silly.
>
> I thought you were this big egalitarian and all.
>
> You mind your business, and I'll mind mine. Deal?
>
> If you want to spend your days looking around and seeing how person A
> started a restaurant chain from the back of his car, and person B
> decided to live off his Social Security check--fine.
>
> But you won't be able to write a happy ending for ANY of them.
>
> Ever.
>

So then if I see someone suffering, I should do NOTHING to help,
because
I can't write it. And who said about trying to control their entire
life?

> It's not a power you possess. You're not The Author--you're just another
> character in the plot.
>

So who does? Random chance? God? Natural Law? The Devil? The
Flying Spaghetti Monster? Who/what do _you_ believe has it?

>
>
> > > > Without such accurate determination, there is no reason to help, no
> > > > matter how bad it looks. Goodbye!". And if you were to
complain, I'
ll
> > > > say "STFU" as I wouldn't want to hear anymore, since you
and I woul
d
> > > > both know we shouldn't be helping one or the other for the reasons
> > > > we've agreed to. And if that were to happen, would you take it all?
If
> > > > not, why are you advocating it? Or am I missing something here? If 
so,
> > > > what?
>
> > > I'd rather you'd actually help them.
>
> > I can't. Not under your logic, since I can't judge who needs help.
> > Pah.
> > You yourself said it.
>
> You can help that cat.
>
> But it's a Chinese Obligation; i.e., an obligation that once you pick it
> up, you can never set it down again.
>
>
>
> > > All you're discussing here is easing your confused conscience.
>
> > > > > The worst thing, obviously, is for you to "help" them
by giving t
he
> > > > > less
> > > > > fortunate some money.
>
> > > > Then what do you propose to do? You don't want the gov't to give th
em
> > > > health care,
>
> > > Mostly because "health care" isn't the government's to give in
the fi
rst
> > > place.
>
> > > > and if you had the ability, would you "give" them health
> > > > care? At least that would be better than just "giving them some
> > > > money",
> > > > no? (If that is their need -- health care.) If they can't get a hig
h-
> > > > paying
> > > > job because they don't have enough education because their parents
> > > > couldn't afford to send them to college, would you help fund that i
f
> > > > you
> > > > had the ability? (Note this doesn't necessarily mean giving them bl
ank
> > > > checks.)
>
> > > Quit throwing those mole hills in their way. You just might succeed i
n
> > > making them believe they're mountains.
>
> > > My parents didn't have enough money to send me to college. Yet today 
I
> > > purchase my own health care insurance.
>
> > > Go figure.
>
> > > Oh yeah. Now I remember. I went to college anyway.
>
> > > > > You see, people often mistake money for wealth. The difference
be
tween
> > > > > wealth and money is this: you can give money.
>
> > > > So what then constitutes "wealth" to you, and why can't it
be "give
n"?
>
> > > A dollar is a diploma.
>
> > > It's a certification that you did your work, went though some tests, 
and
> > > got a passing grade. Some people lie and cheat to get their diplomas,
of
> > > course. But that doesn't diminish the value of your diploma to you.
>
> > > The value of a diploma isn't in the little piece of parchment, is it?
In
> > > all actuality, the nice little frame you put it in to hang in your
> > > office is more valuable than what's in it, prima facie.
>
> > > If you give your diploma to a guy out on the street, it doesn't give 
him
> > > the value of that diploma, does it? He doesn't suddenly know how to
> > > classify living organisms; he can't now explain the Pythagorean Theor
em;
> > > he can't instantly begin reciting Shakespeare's sonnets.
>
> > So then to you, wealth is "intangibles" like knowledge and other
non-
> > material
> > things? That's interesting, since that's what I'd say true wealth
> > really is.
>
> There only one kind of wealth.
>

So is that it?

> > Someone could be poor in the material, and yet rich in the non-
> > material
> > things.
>
> We're all as rich as we'll ever be, right now.
>

So then it doesn't matter what you do. It doesn't matter if you go
"earn" a lot of wealth or don't. It doesn't make one drop of
difference,
since we're can't be any richer, right?

> "Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same
> stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with
> yourself breathes, lives, and dies. It is just as possible for you to
> see in him a free-born man as for him to see in you a slave."
>               ---Seneca (AD 65)
>
>
>
> > > Did you know that 70% of lottery winners are back to being broke insi
de
> > > 5 years?
>
> > > Why do you suppose that is?
>
> > Because they super-spent it all instead of managing it wisely. You
> > don't
> > spend all your money away so fast you make yourself broke. Well, you
> > _shouldn't_.
>
> You only understand /that/ when you've earned what you have.
>
> Don't blame me, I didn't make up the rules.
>
>
>
> > > > > Other than that, you need (for your own sake) to see to it that
> > > > > everyone
> > > > > has all the choices and opportunities possible.
>
> > > > > But never, ever, ever forget: opportunity doesn't = success.
>
> > > > No, opportunity doesn't "equal" success, and I didn't say
it did. Y
ou
> > > > have to seize it, otherwise it slips by.
>
> > > Well Cochise, there's nothing about /your help/ in that equation, is
> > > there?
>
> > No, and I didn't inject it. I'm not sure what the point here is.
>
> That your help isn't required by anyone...but by you...to give it.
>
> They don't need your help; you need to give it.
>

So then stick to your word. Don't help anyone at all in any of their
plight.

>
>
> > > > > > > The United States government isn't suited to
"solving" anyone
's
> > > > > > > "crisis." The Law is just a big, dumb,
brutish monster--and t
he
> > > > > > > only way
> > > > > > > you can get along with it is to let it out of its
cage briefl
y,
> > > > > > > sparingly, only when absolutely necessary.
>
> > > > > > Then provide a non-government solution.
>
> > > > > Solution to what?
>
> > > > > Entropy?
>
> > > > > Can't help you, sorry.
>
> > > > Solution to the crises you say the government can't solve.
>
> > > It's not just me. The only ones telling you the government can solve
> > > problems are lying to you.
>
> > > And they've been lying about it for eons.
>
> > > > > > > If We the People decide to foot the bill for some
poor citize
ns'
> > > > > > > health
> > > > > > > care insurance, then that's that.
>
> > > > > > > As you know, the "47 million" figure was a
lie. It was quickl
y
> > > > > > > reduced
> > > > > > > to 30 million when the press started looking into it
(accordi
ng to
> > > > > > > Obama's spokespeople, this was because he opted to
not includ
e 17
> > > > > > > million illegal aliens anymore). More than half that
remainin
g
> > > > > > > number is
> > > > > > > composed of people who can afford health insurance
(75k/year 
or
> > > > > > > more),
> > > > > > > but choose not to purchase it (mostly young, single
and healt
hy
> > > > > > > people).
> > > > > > > This leaves about 12 million citizens who actually
"fall betw
een
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > cracks."
>
> > > > > > And what do you do about those 12 million? I suppose a
plan to 
target
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > could be done a lot cheaper than the one going through now
(che
ap
> > > > > > enough for
> > > > > > you?)?
>
> > > > > > Also, I'd be curious: what are all your sources? I've
heard the
se
> > > > > > various figures
> > > > > > from various parties involved in this thing, but where do
they 
come
> > > > > > from? I want
> > > > > > the _facts_ behind this stuff.
>
> > > > > All the figures come from the Census. Census dot Gov. I used to
h
ave
> > > > > the
> > > > > link in my notes, but they're not handy and it's getting
late--I 
know
> > > > > you can search the articles/report there. Stay within 2008 for
yo
ur
> > > > > search. Believe me, it's not very hard to find.
>
> > > > I found the tables. Interesting. However, I'm not sure if everyone 
who
> > > > makes over X amount automatically _must_ be simply not getting
> > > > insurance because they don't want to, as opposed to getting it
> > > > because of something else that disqualified them or otherwise
> > > > created hurdles.
>
> > > Lying on your insurance application can leave you without health
> > > insurance, for instance.
>
> > And if you don't lie or do anything dishonest, you'll get it? No ifs
> > or buts?
> > Emm... I'm sorry, but things don't work that way.
>
> An 80% system is about a good as you'll do in this Vale of Tears.
>
> The "100% system" that they're pretending to create will be far worse
> for everyone by every conceivable measure. This isn't a guess--the "100%
> systems" already created for countries around the industrial world are
> pretty grim by your spoiled American sensibilities.
>
> The problem with this universe is, you never really know what you got
> until it's gone.
>
> > > > > > > If We the People think they should be covered, then
they shou
ld be
> > > > > > > covered...by Medicaid (which is already broke) or
SCHIP (whic
h is
> > > > > > > already broke).
>
> > > > > > > Such a simple and clear solution was never on the
table, was 
it?
>
> > > > > > So then why aren't they covered by it?
>
> > > > > IIRC, the Census reports that some actually are covered, but
aren
't
> > > > > aware they can apply. For the rest, it's just a matter of
income
> > > > > bracket.
>
> > > > So if they don't have enough income, why not do something to help
> > > > them?
>
> > > You can't.
>
> > > In that instance, all you can do is "help" your conscience
while you'
re
> > > making an even greater mess for everyone else.
>
> > What kind of "help" are you thinking? As you mentioned, just giving
> > away money won't cut it. And that's not what I was thinking about. I
> > myself am not sure how one would do it, though I'd think a good way
> > might be to do something about the failures of the system that lead
> > to poverty.
>
> In a free society there are no "failures of the system" to fall back
> upon.
>

If there is a SYSTEM, it can fail. The only true "Free society" in
which
there would be no "system" that could fail would be "free" in every
sense of the word. No laws, no rules, no nothing. Jungle rule. Animal
kingdom type stuff. Dog eat dog. The whole shebang. If there is a
system that in any way has any power over your life, then a problem
there can impact your life.

> There are only failures.
>
> You don't want a free society. Which is fine for /you/. Just stay out of
> my front yard and we'll get along great.
>
> > First we have to admit they EXIST, that is, we have to
> > admit
> > that poverty is not always or even most of the times, all the fault of
> > the
> > person in poverty.
>
> "The poor you will always have among you..."
>
>
>
> > <snip>
> > > > So then does this mean that you oppose these programs and would lik
e
> > > > them shut down?
>
> > > I could live with similar programs, if We the People insist.
>
> > > But you gotta stop lying to me about them.
>
> > And what are the "lies" I've told you about them?
>
> That they're "funded."
>
> The greatest lie of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
>

So then what is the TRUTH behind them?

>
>
> > <snip>
> > > > And what then would you do?
>
> > > If we can heard the government back into its cage, what else IS there
to
> > > do?
>
> > > You go back to minding your own business, that's what you do.
>
> > So then that's what you'd do?
>
> Every chance I get, Cochise.
>

Good, at least you stick by your word.

>
>
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > So if YOU wanted to fix the system, how would YOU do it,
and ho
w
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > you help those 12 million people?
>
> > > > > By giving them a damn chance.
>
> > > > A chance to what? Get jobs? How would you do that? And if so, does
> > > > this mean you admit that not everyone who doesn't have a job is
> > > > necessarily that way because they are lazy and that indeed the
> > > > System CAN cause trouble? If so, why advocate a fix, when it's a
"l
aw
> > > > of the universe" it'll always "hammer", as you
mentioned earlier? I
t's
> > > > not
> > > > gonna be PERFECT, and it'll NEVER be PERFECT, but that doesn't
> > > > mean it can't be made BETTER and a LOT better than what we have
> > > > now. Right now, what we have is very, very, very, very far from
> > > > "perfect".
> > > > America isn't even the best nation on the planet. Much less a perfe
ct
> > > > one.
>
> > > See, you obviously DON'T know anything about the "problems,"
nor how 
to
> > > "solve" them.
>
> > > Good thing it's not your job, innit?
>
> > Then I want to learn about the problems and how to solve them. That
> > way
> > I could have that job, and wouldn't that be a good thing?
>
> Then learn about the problems that are right before you, this minute.
>

Like what?

> Some you can do something about, some you can't.
>
> Sort them out and get busy.
>
> And for Heaven's Sake, don't send you police over to my house to "make
> everything equal."
>

I don't have no police.

>
>
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Nor government. Nor laws.
>
> > > > > > > Laws are force. You can't force the heart. Nor the
mind.
>
> > > > > > No, such problems can't be solved with force. That's just
it. S
o what
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > you propose to do about it?
>
> > > > > What are you asking ME for?
>
> > > > A proposal as to what _to do_ as opposed to just claims about what
> > > > _not to do_. You say more government is not the answer. So what IS
> > > > the answer?
>
> > > Don't ask me, ask your sword.
>
> > What's my "sword"?
>
> That's the question, innit?
>

Can you answer it? Can any of us answer it?

[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]

Antworten