Split - Politics of space exploration

[MacRumorSkeptic]

Where is the Constitutional authority to spend U.S. tax dollars on this?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Two years?

How long was Kennedy's pledge to land a man on the moon when he announced it to when it was actually achieved? It was more than two years, if memory serves correctly.

Time to get away from the instant gratification. Scientific progress and engineering requires multiple cycles of development and experimentation and refinement. A manned mission to Mars and a permanent presence on the Moon would be great.

I could see IBM PowerPC G8s being made on the low gravity of the moon. :D

You missed the point IMO. It was to make ligh the George Jr. is trying to do things that his father wasn't able to. Unless George Jr. wins in 2004, then he may never be able to even push the Space agenda. Otherwise he will only have captured "the man that tried to kill my daddy".

We need a stronger USA and World economy to accomplish such a grand promgram IMO. Remember the amount of money that was spent by the space program to get us to the moon in 1969.

While the advances in day to day technology was great, I don't think that we are in the same place to be able to achieve that success. Kennedy won both the Electorial college and the popular vote. By most counts Kennedy was a populist that gained the support of people through thought and deed. It can be said that Kennedy looked to gain a positive world opinion.

There was not a clear mandate for Bush The current administartion has thumbed their noses at nations that did not support them in Iraq. The ideas being pushed by the administartion are not new. They are policies from teh Regan and GHWB eras. Poeple today are worried more about terrorists and their mortgages than getting aman to the moon or Mars. If George W. can show a threat to the moon or Mars by Isamic extreemists, then maybe the people will be behind him.

For me I would rather see that money spent on better health care for all citizens. I would rather see better the wages of legal residents so that companies DON'T have to import "slave" labor through imigration loopholes. I would rather see it go to debt reduction.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to live to see men on the moon again. But not before issues at home are taken care of first.

[peterjhill]

Oh, people are excited about space. We were finally able to get a probe to the surface of Mars in one piece after a bunch of problems with missions after Pathfinder. Maybe the White House can use this for political gain. Yeah, let's try to appeal to smart people and sci-fi geeks.

Sorry George, it won't work.

I have been listening to Al Franken's latest book. I got it from Audible. Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them. It is excellent. I highly recommend it.

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3170606

I think the audiobook is probably better than the real book, since it is read by the author and he includes audio snippets of the people he is quoting, instead of reading the quotes himself. It really gives a lot of insight into the right wing propaganda machine.

Oh, and before someone says that this is offtopic, I think that it is right on the mark. George Bush does not have a grand vision of space travel, he only wants four more years in office and sees this as a way to get it. Just like his efforts to spin his unfunded "No child left behind" initiative that he used extensively in the 2000 election. Yes, he is my president, but he is still a jerk in my opinion.

[superfunkomatic]

i think i'm missing something here. mixed up priorities perhaps in the Bush regime. they have the highest unemployment rate of any presidency, the highest debtload of any presidency, they are spending hundreds of millions on the war in Iraq (which has apparently been over for sometime?!), a growing lower-middle class and growing lower class (working poor). maybe sending a mission to mars isn't the highest priority.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
[BWhile the advances in day to day technology was great, I don't think that we are in the same place to be able to achieve that success. Kennedy won both the Electorial college and the popular vote. By most counts Kennedy was a populist that gained the support of people through thought and deed. It can be said that Kennedy looked to gain a positive world opinion.[/B]

Whoa. Talk about revisionist history.

The 1960 election was the closest in American history. John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon by less than 120,000 popular votes. Many Nixon supporters believe that Chicagos political leaders tampered with the ballots to give JFK a very narrow victory in Illinois. Henry Bryd carried Mississippi and recived electoral votes in Oklahoma and Alabama. For some strange reason Oklahoma cast one electoral vote for Barry Goldwater to be Vice-President.

Electoral College (http://www.grayraven.com/ec/), select 1960 and see for yourself.

Nixon could have done an AlGore and disputed the results, but he did not. Please do more research.

Kennedy only served one term, not a full term either. After his death, the number of people claiming to have voted for him should have made the 1960 election a landslide instead of the close election it really was.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
For me I would rather see that money spent on better health care for all citizens. I would rather see better the wages of legal residents so that companies DON'T have to import "slave" labor through imigration loopholes. I would rather see it go to debt reduction.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to live to see men on the moon again. But not before issues at home are taken care of first.

Pay for your own health care. Get a job.

As to better wages... what has decades of pumping up the minimum wage given us? Jobs being exported. Coincidence?

[Rower_CPU]

Frohickey-
Your link and statements do nothing to dispute his statement that Kennedy "won both the Electorial college and the popular vote".

What exactly are you trying to argue?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Frohickey-
Your link and statements do nothing to dispute his statement that Kennedy "won both the Electorial college and the popular vote".

What exactly are you trying to argue?

Disputes his characterization that Kennedy was popular, eh?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Disputes his characterization that Kennedy was popular, eh?

Maybe not at the election, but it seems to me that Chip's point was that he gained popularity during his presidency ("By most counts Kennedy was a populist that gained the support of people through thought and deed.").

Post some stats showing he was unpopular right before he was assassinated and you'll have a point.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Pay for your own health care. Get a job.

I am self-employed and run a successful small business, yet health care costs are eating me alive. Once again, you provide more evidence that you are missing a vital organ. I suggest you get a heart.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I am self-employed and run a successful small business, yet health care costs are eating me alive. Once again, you provide more evidence that you are missing a vital organ. I suggest you get a heart.

What does me having a heart have to do with you stealing money from my wallet to pay for YOUR health care?

Take care of yourself, I'll take care of myself. Maybe I have an old grandma that I don't want going off into a old folks home, and that would take a sizeable chunk of MY money that you think should go to YOU for YOUR health care.

How would you like if it I said that you should sell your successful small business so that I can keep my grandma at home wtih a nursing staff?

[idkew]

i truely do not think that we (the people) should be directly paying for all space exploration. i like the rovers going to mars a lot, but i also think there is room for private organizations going into space when they please (with some restrictions, just as private air travel is semi-free). i am not sure what the restrictions are at the moment, but my understanding is that space is a fairly closed space. ;)

I would love to be able to drop a few grand to be able to go into space for a night or two. the only way this is possible, is to let private space travel happen.

i read in a recent pop sci that while NASA charges less for a 3rd party to put a satallie in orbit, it actually costs them more than a higher bidding private company. NASA prefers to lose money in a launch then let a different company get the business. kinda like m$ft (ok, i had to do it.) this type of activity by NASA, i believe, will prevent private space travel from occuring.

but, I also want to see us go to the moon again. i want a man on mars.

i also do not put any credibility in the "lets do X here before we go to mars." like i said before, we would not have gotten, as a race, where we are today by solving every single little problem before tackling a larger goal.

would we have a G5 if apple was focusing solely to get the 68040 line of chips and computers in every single hosehold, no matter what their income was? obviously the answer is no. everyone can't be a millionaire. and conversly, there can't not be any millionaires.

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I am self-employed and run a successful small business, yet health care costs are eating me alive. Once again, you provide more evidence that you are missing a vital organ. I suggest you get a heart.

unless you want to stop healthcare innovation, healthcare is going to cost you. wether you pay out of your pocket, or you employer pays and in turn pays you less, you pay for it.

which situation would you rather be faced with: blindness due to a potentially cureable/fixable situation, but with more cash in your pocket? or sight restored, but a little poorer? i choose sight.

right now, i have no health insurance. i am not blaming the government, i am not blaming the doctors. i am blaming myself b/c i have no job. i don't expect people whom i do not know to take care of me. i am responcible for myself, not the government.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What does me having a heart have to do with you stealing money from my wallet to pay for YOUR health care?

Take care of yourself, I'll take care of myself. Maybe I have an old grandma that I don't want going off into a old folks home, and that would take a sizeable chunk of MY money that you think should go to YOU for YOUR health care.

How would you like if it I said that you should sell your successful small business so that I can keep my grandma at home wtih a nursing staff?

Oh was that your wallet I've been stealing from? Pardon me.:p

By that logic, you've been stealing from ME every time you drive on the public roads, fly on a plane, turn on your electricity or water, visit a public library, and any of a host of other ventures that are funded in any part by taxpayer funds. So lets hear your calls for every road in America to be a toll road, lets banish public libraries, and by all means pay what it ACTUALLY costs to fly on an airplane. I'm sure you'll be at the front of that line. You seem to see health care as the only way money is 'stolen' from you, and you seem to pay little attention to the many corporate giveaways and subsidies that enable your comfortable lifestyle.

Oh I'm sure you'd like to pay the private fire department for their services before they put the fire at your house out. (What's that you say? Your wallet is IN the house? Sorry, no money, no water!)

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the health care system. Just say that three times and click your heals, and we'll all be back in Kansas before you know it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Lets not make this a pissing contest but keep things in perspective. before blowing 87 billion and more in Iraq i would have said lets do it but now that we see bush lied on WMD's and we are in a big hole with spending i would rather we get a Healthcare system in place and free up all those businesses from this burden. right now a big chunk of money never makes it to the patient or the medical care provider because its in the hands of the insurance companies. who does this help? my wife and i pay a lot to these companies and i have not been sick in years nor her. Do i want to open space? you bet! before we have all these grand dreams we first need a better way to space rather then huge chemical rockets from the days of Apollo. first things first. A health care package for every American and then lets build a Great Space transportation system otherwise its a rehash of what we have allready done.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Oh was that your wallet I've been stealing from? Pardon me.:p

By that logic, you've been stealing from ME every time you drive on the public roads, fly on a plane, turn on your electricity or water, visit a public library, and any of a host of other ventures that are funded in any part by taxpayer funds.

You use poor examples to make your point.

The reason roads are tax payer funded is because this is the only solution. It is not possible to have roads only funded by private citizens larger than a driveway or private drive in a neighborhood. Roads, by there very nature, are to be used by everyone. It is porhibitively expensive to place a tool booth on every single corner of every single road in every single city...

Once again, water and electricity are funded and contorlled by the government because there is not room for the infrastructure for many different small companies in every town. Now, if you want to pump your own water or make your own electricity, you are more than legally welcome to, it is just easier and less expensive to go with the governemt one. Besides, the gov does not subsidise my water, gas and electric, it subsidises those whoc an not afford it.

Airlines are being helped by the gov due to an act of war. This has little to do with healthcare. If you really think about it, you do get free healthcare when it comes to war, join the army and fight.

Public Libraries are around because of a simple reason, they are not profitable. The only provate libraries I can think of are college libraraies, which are necessary to colleges. Without a public library, we would not have any besides colleges and universities, which are only available to a select few.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
You use poor examples to make your point.

The reason roads are tax payer funded is because this is the only solution. It is not possible to have roads only funded by private citizens larger than a driveway or private drive in a neighborhood. Roads, by there very nature, are to be used by everyone. It is porhibitively expensive to place a tool booth on every single corner of every single road in every single city...

Once again, water and electricity are funded and contorlled by the government because there is not room for the infrastructure for many different small companies in every town. Now, if you want to pump your own water or make your own electricity, you are more than legally welcome to, it is just easier and less expensive to go with the governemt one. Besides, the gov does not subsidise my water, gas and electric, it subsidises those whoc an not afford it.

Airlines are being helped by the gov due to an act of war. This has little to do with healthcare. If you really think about it, you do get free healthcare when it comes to war, join the army and fight.

Public Libraries are around because of a simple reason, they are not profitable. The only provate libraries I can think of are college libraraies, which are necessary to colleges. Without a public library, we would not have any besides colleges and universities, which are only available to a select few.

Hey, if you want to buy the land and build your own roads, you are legally welcome to. And yes, the government does subsidize YOUR water and gas and electricity in the form of tax incentives to those industries. When the airlines were going belly up, who footed the bill? And let me tell you, it wasn't soley because of 9/11, the airlines were getting hit hard before then. Who's going to help the electric industry 'modernize' those lines that caused last years blackout? That's right, you and I. And who paid for the industries failure to maintain the lines they do have? Right again.

We're not arguing that the roads (or health care) aren't meant to be used by everyone. But the roads are subsidized by the government precisely because it is impractical to have everyone pay for what they use. Think about it. If you live in a small town and you walk to most of your destinations, you are paying for those who live in the LA or SF area who put 100+ miles on their cars each and every day. I'm comparing that to Frohickey's argument that we should only pay for what we use in terms of health care benefits. Plus we are getting the benefit of economy of scale. If you only need a few gallons of water a day, would you rather throw in your money with the general public and get a deal, or would you rather pay the price of what a couple of gallons of water costs to extract (I'll give you a hint, installing a well or aquaduct to bring you around 200 gallons a day costs significantly more on a per-gallon basis than an aquaduct or well that is bringing in hundreds of thousands of gallons a day.) So why not apply that logic to health care if he is so willing to apply it to things like roadways and waterways etc.

And even you admit that public libraries are there soley because they benefit society at large.

[IJ Reilly]

Yea, verily. But I always appreciate the candor of conservatives who will actually admit to believing that 42.5 million working Americans have no access to health care because they don't deserve it. Maybe that statement should be made a plank of the Republican party platform. And the chances of that ever happening are ___?

[2jaded2care]

(I gotta stay away from these forums...)

I wouldn't care if it was Conan the Barbarian as President grabbing at political straws, if any President's gonna propose serious space exploration, I'm for it. (Of course, some of you think that's exactly the case here.) ;)

Yes, health care in this country is a serious mess. So fix the problem, don't punish other government initiatives because we can't agree on how to fix this. If we wait for that, nothing else will ever get done.

No, it isn't exactly fiscally responsible. When has that ever stopped government before? If we don't spend the money here, it'll get spent somewhere else. Neither party is averse to spending money, they just want it to go where it'll profit them the most.

Yes, I would prefer that private enterprise step up to the plate here. Maybe it will happen.

I do think that the fringe benefits would be worth it in the long run. I think we are using the tools which came about much faster because of the early days of the space program... And if it gets kids interested in science again, what's so bad about that?

It's very depressing to me to think that in a thousand years we'll still be stuck on this rock, waiting for the eventual planet-killer...

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hey, if you want to buy the land and build your own roads, you are legally welcome to. And yes, the government does subsidize YOUR water and gas and electricity in the form of tax incentives to those industries. When the airlines were going belly up, who footed the bill? And let me tell you, it wasn't soley because of 9/11, the airlines were getting hit hard before then. Who's going to help the electric industry 'modernize' those lines that caused last years blackout? That's right, you and I. And who paid for the industries failure to maintain the lines they do have? Right again.

We're not arguing that the roads (or health care) aren't meant to be used by everyone. But the roads are subsidized by the government precisely because it is impractical to have everyone pay for what they use. Think about it. If you live in a small town and you walk to most of your destinations, you are paying for those who live in the LA or SF area who put 100+ miles on their cars each and every day. I'm comparing that to Frohickey's argument that we should only pay for what we use in terms of health care benefits. Plus we are getting the benefit of economy of scale. If you only need a few gallons of water a day, would you rather throw in your money with the general public and get a deal, or would you rather pay the price of what a couple of gallons of water costs to extract (I'll give you a hint, installing a well or aquaduct to bring you around 200 gallons a day costs significantly more on a per-gallon basis than an aquaduct or well that is bringing in hundreds of thousands of gallons a day.) So why not apply that logic to health care if he is so willing to apply it to things like roadways and waterways etc.

And even you admit that public libraries are there soley because they benefit society at large.

besides some minor differences (gov subsidies for mod. elec.), you just re-worded what i said. i don't get your point.

[mactastic]

My point is that health care would be better served, and cheaper overall, if we could eliminate the HMO's and get a deal by pooling our resources LIKE WE DO WITH MANY OTHER INDUSTRIES. Is that clear enough?

Frohickey is arguing that it is stealing from him to make him pay for my health care. My point is that he doesn't consider it stealing when a traveling salesman puts 60,000 miles on his car while I only put 12,000 on mine yet we both pay the same amount for said roads.

[2jaded2care]

Lighten up and try to have a nice weekend, everybody!:)

Or is that too much to ask?

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
My point is that health care would be better served, and cheaper overall, if we could eliminate the HMO's and get a deal by pooling our resources LIKE WE DO WITH MANY OTHER INDUSTRIES. Is that clear enough?

you do realize that insurance does exactly what you are speaking of, don't you? that is why you pay monthly instead of only when you need insurance. the company takes a risk (you) and sometimes their gamble wins, sometimes it loses. Premiums are based on the amount of risk.

The only difference between insurance, and what i can gather you want, since you can't seem to stay calm and make a coherrent response, is that in your method of heathcare administration, everyone gets healthcare, no matter if yhey pay in or not. is that what you mean? the rich pay for the poor? is it right/fair for the haves to be legally forced to care for the have nots/people who don't want to work?

[edit] now don't get me wrong. the current system has problems. hmo's do need to go. but, nationalizing the system is not going to fix it. there is no wat that i would accept waiting sever days/weeks to get a procedute done, as is the case in other national systems (canada).

the canadians I have spoken with very much dislike their system. these are not rich millionaires. they are regular people. also, with a nationalized healthcare system, the brightest people will no longer be drawn to a medium paying profession (medicaine). They will instead go to high paying, private areas. maybe you don't, but i want the best and the brightest people when dealing with my life, and my eventual children's lives.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
you do realize that insurance does exactly what you are speaking of, don't you? that is why you pay monthly instead of only when you need insurance. the company takes a risk (you) and sometimes their gamble wins, sometimes it loses. Premiums are based on the amount of risk.

The only difference between insurance, and what i can gather you want, since you can't seem to stay calm and make a coherrent response, is that in your method of heathcare administration, everyone gets healthcare, no matter if yhey pay in or not. is that what you mean? the rich pay for the poor? is it right/fair for the haves to be legally forced to care for the have nots/prople who don't want to work?

Pardon me if you don't find me coherent. Most people do.

You do realize that you are already paying more for the uninsured to go to the emergency room for treatment that could be taken care of at a doctors office if they could go there, but emergency rooms can't refuse patients. So the uninsured call an ambulance and the cost goes through the roof. And yes, everyone should get healthcare. I see that as a basic right. Perhaps you don't and that is your opinion and fine with me. Is it ok with you that car insurance is mandatory for drivers? And by the way, the bulk of the uninsured in this country are not the 'lazy unemployed' that you keep insinuating. Most are working people who can't afford it on their own and their jobs don't offer it. I don't even care if the most basic coverage is offered to everyone with better coverage for those who can afford it, but it makes me sick to think that there are 'uninsurable' people out there who work just as hard as you or I but have a pre-existing condition that makes them a liability for an insurance company, so they are simply turned down. In other words, the insurance companies are interested in insuring those who need it least. I think that sucks.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Yes, health care in this country is a serious mess. So fix the problem, don't punish other government initiatives because we can't agree on how to fix this. If we wait for that, nothing else will ever get done.

Well I agree with you here, if only because I'm a child of the space race and have always thought in those terms. I can well remember John Glenn's flight, and one of the other Mercury astronauts was from my home town. We had a big parade for him when he got back and named a park in his honor. Somewhere in my storage shed I've still got a box full of newspapers I saved from July 1969. In all, space exploration was a big part of my formative years.

Our lack of serious progress over the last 25 years is a major disappointment to me, and I'm sorry we seemed to lose the imagination for the future that was represented by the space program during the 1960s. In truth, that imagination was no small part an extension of the Cold War, though, so it's no surprise it ran out of gas once it was clear we'd beat the Soviets at that game.

All this being said, I think Bush's timing could hardly be worse, and more apparently for political effect. We need to get our house in better order before we can afford such an expansive imagination.

[McToast]

Gee Mr. President, I'd like some decent healthcare for all Americans before you spend quadrillions to attempt to send men to Mars.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
And by the way, the bulk of the uninsured in this country are not the 'lazy unemployed' that you keep insinuating.... In other words, the insurance companies are interested in insuring those who need it least. I think that sucks.


Can you please go find where i said "lazy unemployed". I currently am jobless (technically unemployed, but i havn't had a job since graduating, so i am jobless). i have no health insurance. I still do not want a national system.

As i said, the current system is not perfect, but neither is anything else. I never said i had the solution, but i do believe that nationalizing the system only benefits the impovrished, and hurts the rest of the population. Plus, with a nationalized system, then we have illegal immigrants getting free healthcare, since they pay no taxes. that even increases the cost to you and i more.

also- i don't think you are correct in saying that uninsured emergency room visits cost more than anything else. my fairly educated guess is that surgeries, cancer treatments and rehabilitation costs much more than the relitively quick fixes and short visits to the ER.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
Can you please go find where i said "lazy unemployed". I currently am jobless (technically unemployed, but i havn't had a job since graduating, so i am jobless). i have no health insurance. I still do not want a national system.

As i said, the current system is not perfect, but neither is anything else. I never said i had the solution, but i do believe that nationalizing the system only benefits the impovrished, and hurts the rest of the population. Plus, with a nationalized system, then we have illegal immigrants getting free healthcare, since they pay no taxes. that even increases the cost to you and i more.

also- i don't think you are correct in saying that uninsured emergency room visits cost more than anything else. my fairly educated guess is that surgeries, cancer treatments and rehabilitation costs much more than the relitively quick fixes and short visits to the ER.

Your comment about the haves and the have not's is a red flag to me that some are more deserving than others because of the money they possess. You didn't actually use the word 'lazy', thus I used the word 'insinuate'. If you aren't of the crowd that associates unemployed with lazy, then my apologies. I find they often go hand in hand.

And please show me where I said emergency room visits cost more than anything else.

I said they incur unnecessary costs. Why do you think an aspirin costs $50 at the hospital? Because they get jacked by so many uninsured people that they can't turn away. Would you like to see the uninsured left at the hospital doorstep? Or even those who didn't happen to have their insurance card with them? The hospital inflates the costs that the insurance companies pay because of this, and they pass those costs along to me and my employer. How is that fair? The way I see it, the insured are already covering the uninsured as is, so why not just admit to it, and set up a system where everyone pays into it, and gets the benefits of it. Kinda like the highway system.;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

you already are paying for healthcare in reguard to illegals, a hospital can not turn them away by law, just as by law they are not supposed to wander into our country. until george does something about the borders with his so called mexican buddy president Taco.
For a so called Republican George is blowing every dime we got while companies are sending our manufacturing base overseas. i know we can go to the moon in a Rocket made in China and on to Mars. meanwhile we got a 25 year old shuttle that has blown up twice? a space station that leaks, and the same station they are allready talking about canning? whats wrong with this picture. didnt they ever play with building blocks? Election year, i can get the space vote and the mexican vote. I expect better from the President and from Nasa.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Your comment about the haves and the have not's is a red flag to me that some are more deserving than others because of the money they possess. You didn't actually use the word 'lazy', thus I used the word 'insinuate'. If you aren't of the crowd that associates unemployed with lazy, then my apologies. I find they often go hand in hand.... so why not just admit to it, and set up a system where everyone pays into it, and gets the benefits of it. Kinda like the highway system.;)


well, by have and have nots, i mean people who have had the parental support, mentally and finantially and the people who have found success (the haves) the people i group as have nots are those without parental support and/or people who have not made it.

and yes, most people VERY MUCH deserve the money they possess. without getting too personal, my father has become a very successful man, not becuase he was given money, becuase he worked his ass off and spent 50-80+ hours a week working. he earned his money. he deserves it.

plus, there are lazy people out there. wether you want to beileve it or not. i am not, by any means, saying all poor people are lazy, but these people do exist, and get by doing the absolute minimum, and are happy that way too.


but anyway- this is my last post of the night, so until next time, go private space travel!

[Durandal7]

If Bush manages this right then there will be a massive effect on the economy. The Apollo missions created several million jobs in NASA and contracted companies as well as bringing billions of dollars (adjusted for inflation ;) ) into the economy. The industries that will benefit most will be high-tech and manufacturing, coincidentally the industries that are having the hardest time.

This is the logical time to announce an expanded space program in light of China and Columbia. To those who complain that it is an election year I think it is fair to point out that every other year is a major congressional election. Also let's keep in mind that politicians really don't do anything unless it will get them or their party votes.

Complaints about the shuttle are a little odd. Almost every single article I have read indicates that the first step is to junk the shuttle and create a more versatile and reliable vehicle.

Socialized health care is not a realistic possibility for at least 4 years as Republican control over the House shows no sign of dissapearing.

[Dont Hurt Me]

You make some very good points durandal7, true your not going to get a healthcare package with the house, i would like us to have a focus plan for space instead of what we have now. Do you really think we should let Nasa manage it? just as our immigration policy needs to be rewritten the space program and the old habits of those that administer it needs to be overhauled. they were suppose to do this after the first shuttle failure. why not some new type of dept of Space developement rather then to just keep going with Nasa? I think Nasa is great at science and research. I think Nasa is very bad at building and maintaining a space program. Without a better way to high orbit everything else is secondary. I would like to see building blocks laid down so we can build a infrastructure. 1st we need a people mover to space. then we need a cargo hauler. then a improved space station. then a true space craft that doesnt have to worry about entering the atmosphere. once we have those then we can explore the heavens but sending gigantic rockets up from earths gravity to the moon or mars is not the way. we did this with apollo and what do we have now? nothing. This would have been a lot easier to swallow before blowing the national surplus in Iraq.

[Durandal7]

What you say is true Dont Hurt Me. Part of the problem with NASA is that their hands have been tied for years by a slashed budget and public apathy to all things scientific. As much as I hate to say it, rivalry with China and a national tragedy may be just the thing to correct the situation.

From what I understand President Bush is NOT proposing a trip to Mars next year. What he probably is going to propose is the beginning of a decade long process that will see the creation of an orbital space plane, a base on the moon and a "Crew Exploartion Vehicle" capable of landing on the moon and NEAs (Near Earth Asteroids). After this has been established we will see an attempt for Mars.

In a few months after Bush's preliminary announcement (assuming it occurs) and NASA follow-ups then we should have a rough idea of what will take place. Dont Hurt Me, I can almost gurantee that if this goes forward we will see a major reorgazination of NASA over the next few years.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nasa has some Great ideas and science. i would just like to see more things come out of all of the x programs and the science they have done rather then doing the science and research only to forget it. its like they are allways discovering something new, creating that paperwork putting it in a file and then they keep going with a 25 year old shuttle?Nasa is not a space craft maker and what we need is a Space craft maker. still blows me away how they could just ignore all those safety concerns with shuttle and to loose 2 shuttles and crews is not easily forgotten by me. forgive me but incompetence is incompetence. They are saddled with Govt beauracracy with politics and pork barrel spending and near sighted vision. 30 years after Apollo and what have we got? reorganizing Nasa may not be enough. Creating a all new Dept of Space may be the ticket.

[Frohickey]

Lets see...

NASA has seen its budgets slashed along with public apathy. Money still talks, and people with scientific talents are also looking out of their economic well-being. These days, hi-tech is where the money is at, and guess where the talent is at?

A renewed push for something new, such as a lunar base, or a manned mission to the Mars, or other brand-new never-before-tried-shoot-for-the-Moon would bring back much needed talent from other industries back to where that new stuff is happening.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
My point is that health care would be better served, and cheaper overall, if we could eliminate the HMO's and get a deal by pooling our resources LIKE WE DO WITH MANY OTHER INDUSTRIES. Is that clear enough?

Frohickey is arguing that it is stealing from him to make him pay for my health care. My point is that he doesn't consider it stealing when a traveling salesman puts 60,000 miles on his car while I only put 12,000 on mine yet we both pay the same amount for said roads.

When a travelling salesman puts 60K miles, he's paying for 60K miles worth of fuel, and that goes into the road maintenance. Your 12K miles worth, and 12K miles worth of fuel does the same thing.

Now, why should I pay for your 2packs-a-day-half-a bottle of liquor a day habit, and skydiving hobby?

The advanced state of medical care in the United States is because of the monetary incentive to better diagnose, better care, lengthen life, etc. Without this monetary incentive, all of these technological advances would evaporate, or stagnate.

When was the last time you went to work and volunteered to NOT get paid for it?

Getting rid of the HMOs and pooling our resources to get a better deal... what industry does that happen in. Competition by private companies that have a monetary incentive to be efficient in order to survive is what gets us our better deals. You propose to get rid of that system in the pie-in-the-sky hope that when we pool our resources together we get a better deal.

Socialized Medicine, Canadian style (http://www.ncpa.org/health/pdh36b.html)
Why I'm Glad I'm Not a Doctor (http://enphilistor.users4.50megs.com/doctors.htm)

If what you want, or thinks everyone else wants, which is lower health care costs by pooling resources can be done, its already being done. Capitalism and the markets are nothing if not flexible enough to accomodate new ideas. Its when you start adding laws that you distort the market.

If you run a small successful business, couldn't you start up a group of other like minded small successful business and collectively bargain for your health care? You can pool your resources, nothing is stopping you.

BTW, your idea of socialized medicine have been tried in various states. Last I heard, Al Gore's home state of Tennessee is having skyrocketting costs as well as HMOs bailing out of TennCare because its about to start losing money. Oh, lets just make it illegal for the HMO to bail out. Lets put them in jail if they do. Hows that for socialized medicine that works? One that takes people's freedom away.

This is similar to what Social Security is. When Social Security started, benefits were high and retirement age was low. The early ones are the ones to make out, but in the end, its not self-sustaining.

Sorry for the out of topic post, but this was just heading towards there with comments about 'I suggest you get a heart.'

[mactastic]

Once again, gas taxes don't cover the cost of road building.
Link (http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/032Spring/02provocateur.html)
Year after year, revenues from state and federal taxes on gasoline sales pump approximately $45 billion into constructing and maintaining the nation's road network...

But Martin Wachs, in a new report released this month by the Brookings Institution (see www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications/wachstransportation.htm), shows that the gas tax has been paying for less and less of the total cost of the national road system. Although Wach's report is at times overly narrow, it is valuable because he shows what many people do not know: that the gas tax pays for only about a third of the cost of the road system. This has major implications for mass transit funding, which is so often criticized for "not paying for itself."

The study's central chart shows how the nation spent $133 billion on roads and highways in 2001. This includes Federal, state and local roads, from big expressways to meandering local roads. On average, the gas tax paid for only 35% of this figure. This means that non-automobile-related taxes pay for about 40% of the total cost of the road network.
One of the problems with Wachs' analysis is that he sees the gas tax as a user fee. In reality, a gas tax is not a user fee. Only a toll is a true user fee because it is point (or pavement) specific. If you use a particular highway, you pay a particular toll.
The very general nature of the gas tax encourages more driving and more road building, while user fees are generally designed to encourage moderation. On the supply side, revenue from the gas tax allows states to build highways that are not always needed, or worse yet, add to the overall congestion problem by encouraging further sprawling development.
Highway planners do not have to prove that a highway would pay for itself through its tolls. Studies have shown that, if a highway had to pay for itself through tolls, almost none would be built.
Emphasis, as always, mine.

I suggest you do some fact checking before making the tired claim that gas taxes pay for road building. So, once again, I ask you; how is it fair for the traveling salesman to steal from me? How do you justify your indignation at a national health care system while remaining curiously silent about the transportation boondoggle? Should we raise the gas tax to make it *actually* pay for the costs of roadbuilding? And that doesn't even include the costs of the pollution they create, which oddly enough brings me right back to health care. If you drive 60,000 miles a year, you are more responsible for the costs society has to bear from asthma and other dirty-air related issues, yet you aren't paying in to that pool. I thought you were a big fan of paying every cent for what something costs to be fair?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
well, by have and have nots, i mean people who have had the parental support, mentally and finantially and the people who have found success (the haves) the people i group as have nots are those without parental support and/or people who have not made it.

and yes, most people VERY MUCH deserve the money they possess. without getting too personal, my father has become a very successful man, not becuase he was given money, becuase he worked his ass off and spent 50-80+ hours a week working. he earned his money. he deserves it.

plus, there are lazy people out there. wether you want to beileve it or not. i am not, by any means, saying all poor people are lazy, but these people do exist, and get by doing the absolute minimum, and are happy that way too.


but anyway- this is my last post of the night, so until next time, go private space travel!

Yes, rich people deserve things like dual G5's with 23" LCD's more than others. They deserve the right to spend $29,500 on iTMS. They have the right to bigger houses, porsches, expensive wines, and whatever else suits their tastes. They don't deserve access to a doctor more than someone else IMHO. That infringes on your constitutionally guaranteed right to life as I see it. If early detection of cancer is the only prevention, lack of access to a doctor is tantamount to depriving you of that right.

And believe me, I know there are plenty of lazy people out there. I also know that there are plenty of "working poor" who can't afford insurance. Why should they be punished for the laziness of a small segment of the uninsured population?

And your comment about parental support disturbs me. Are you suggesting that a parents alchohol or mental problems determine your right to health care, or a future in general? Or that a lazy rich kid is as deserving of health care as a hardworking child of poor but hardworking parents?

[Desertrat]

Gasoline taxes have been essentially static for decades; the costs of highways have risen far beyond any acknowledged rates of inflation. If we raised the federal tax from 18 cents/gallon to 54 cents/gallon, federal-aid projects would be paid for by users.

Now, such a tax increase is seen as quite detrimental to the living standards of the general populace, and particularly of the poor. So, we use the general revenue fund to augment the gasoline tax.

Isn't this pretty much the same as we do for medical care for those without health insurance?

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Isn't this pretty much the same as we do for medical care for those without health insurance?

Yes, except for the 42.5 million working people for whom we don't.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Gasoline taxes have been essentially static for decades; the costs of highways have risen far beyond any acknowledged rates of inflation. If we raised the federal tax from 18 cents/gallon to 54 cents/gallon, federal-aid projects would be paid for by users.

Now, such a tax increase is seen as quite detrimental to the living standards of the general populace, and particularly of the poor. So, we use the general revenue fund to augment the gasoline tax.

Isn't this pretty much the same as we do for medical care for those without health insurance?

'Rat

My point exactly, which is antithetic to Frohickey's view that we should all pay for everything we use and nothing more.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
]And your comment about parental support disturbs me. Are you suggesting that a parents alchohol or mental problems determine your right to health care, or a future in general? Or that a lazy rich kid is as deserving of health care as a hardworking child of poor but hardworking parents?

You are taking me to be extreme right. I am right, but much closer to the center than what you seem to believe. What I am saying by "no parental support" is that the child is not told to do their homework. They are not encouraged to succeed. They have no support from their parents to help make theur futures bright. They are not taught any better. I am also not saying that these people do not desrve health care, I am saying that these are the people who can not afford the health care, because they were not taught to succeed in life.

As for "lazy rich kids," unless the parents are extremely well off, there is no way this wealth will transfer to the next generation. Only a small amount of the population has the ability to do this. Far less than the amount of people under the poverty line. So, in the long run, these people are not any better off than you or I. They'll be forced to get a job, and pay for their healthcare themselves someday.

[McToast]

Originally posted by idkew
Plus, with a nationalized system, then we have illegal immigrants getting free healthcare, since they pay no taxes. that even increases the cost to you and i more.


LOL!!! Do you even know what you are talking about or do you just shoot your mouth off? Illegal immigrants to this country GET FREE HEALTHCARE ALREADY!!! I suggest you check out your facts and know what you are talking about before you make more statements that belie your knowledge on the matter of healthcare in the United States.

[mactastic]

Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, many times they provide a fake SSN, not to mention they pay sales tax on everything they buy. I understand what you are trying to say, and to some extent I agree with you, however the AM radio rhetoric of illegals paying no taxes is a lie. You would do well to rethink that statement.

[idkew]

Originally posted by McToast
LOL!!! Do you even know what you are talking about or do you just shoot your mouth off? Illegal immigrants to this country GET FREE HEALTHCARE ALREADY!!! I suggest you check out your facts and know what you are talking about before you make more statements that belie your knowledge on the matter of healthcare in the United States.

i didn't realize that they treat brain tumors, cancer and give out free phisicals. free eye exams, free contacts. free prrescriptiond drugs. yes, illegals get free ER care, but not free "advanced" care.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, many times they provide a fake SSN, not to mention they pay sales tax on everything they buy. I understand what you are trying to say, and to some extent I agree with you, however the AM radio rhetoric of illegals paying no taxes is a lie. You would do well to rethink that statement.

sorry, you are right aboust sales, gas and other such "opt in by buying" taxes, but the majority do not pay income tax. some may, but not the majority.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
i didn't realize that they treat brain tumors, cancer and give out free phisicals. free eye exams, free contacts. free prrescriptiond drugs. yes, illegals get free ER care, but not free "advanced" care.

Yeah, good thing that the immigrants only get the cheap stuff, eh? It's a good thing they're getting the trauma centres but staying out of the family physician's offices, where the major expenses are incurred. Then we'd really be in trouble.

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yeah, good thing that the immigrants only get the cheap stuff, eh? It's a good thing they're getting the trauma centres but staying out of the family physician's offices, where the major expenses are incurred. Then we'd really be in trouble.

edited for sarcasm/happieness...


i actually think that all immigrant should be denied all health care. they should be forced to walk in gutters and wear large, caution orange, I's on their chests at all times, even while showering and sleeping. they sould only eat food that has been rejected from pet food supplies. hey, this would be a good way to use those mad cows.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
edited...


i actually think that all immigrant should be denied all health care. they should be forced to walk in gutters and wear large, caution orange, I's on their chests at all times, even while showering and sleeping. they sould only eat food that has been rejected from pet food supplies. hey, this would be a good way to use those mad cows.

or, in other words, pseudobrit, get a pseudo life and stop putting words in other people mouths.

edit from: just like a democrat. i make a valid and true point, and you make it sound like i hate all immigrants and they all should just die slow and paintful deaths.

Now why'd you go and change it to include personal attacks? That's just silly.

[pseudobrit]

What was your valid and true point?

That immigrants don't get healthcare? That's false.

That they don't get the good, expensive healthcare? That's false too.

So they might not get a regular checkups and regular care. They still get what they need to survive once it's critical and most expensive.

This has nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with logic.

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
edit from:

Now why'd you go and change it to include personal attacks? That's just silly.

that is why i edited it [edit- wait, i read your first post wrong. i did not see that as an attack. sorry if you did. i was just trying to make an amusing pun.]

[pseudobrit]

Telling me to "get a pseudo life" is a personal attack. You called me a loser.

For what? Posting on a Mac forum? Got news for ya...

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
that is why i edited it [edit- wait, i read your first post wrong. i did not see that as an attack. sorry if you did. i was just trying to make an amusing pun.]

not to mention, your was as much as a personal attack. putting false words in one's mouth is the same as calling someone a democrat in aderrgotory way.

My argument was made using sarcasm. I put no words in your mouth and I did not insult you.

It's not an amusing pun, it's a cheap shot at me personally. If you get personally offended by sarcastic debate, I advise you to just leave now.

[IJ Reilly]

Come on, guys -- turn the temperature down, or we're going to get this forum back on arn's hit-list.

[idkew]

Come on, guys -- turn the temperature down, or we're going to get this forum back on arn's hit-list


edited some ice in.

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
This has nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with logic.

i am not sure what is logical about universal healthcare when it comes to abuse.

while i am no tax "doctor" I highly doubt that state sales tax would go to a federal system of healthcare.

isn't the big tax income for the feds from income tax? if you are illegally in the country, and being paid under the counter, how does the government get this money?

one thing i think is absolutely necessary, if there were to be a national HC system, is that users pay into it. Wether it be 200 grand or 2 grand, it doesn't matter, but for HC, one must put something on the pot.

[McToast]

Universal Healthcare for all U.S. Citizens.

The fact that the U.S. doesn't have this is a disgrace.

Period.

[2jaded2care]

NASA currently consumes less than 1% of the federal budget.

Entitlement spending (Social security, Medicare, Medicaid) consumes 2/3 of the federal budget.

I'm not sure that even a majority of citizens would agree that the lack of US universal health care is a disgrace. Those in health care plans or who can afford care are probably scared of what it would cost (assuredly more than proponents will estimate or admit), and that services will decline for all. As far as I know, no one in need of emergency help is turned away, and we all pay for that one way or another. Not to say "you're not covered, too bad for you, now go die", but not everyone's convinced that "universal health care" is the panacea some think it is.

Obviously something is wrong with the health care picture. It's wrong when hospitals charge several dollars per aspirin pill, and doctors quit their practices because they cannot afford malpractice insurance.

I have heard that we need tort reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards -- but, if you are the one injured by malpractice, you most definitely feel you deserve fair compensation for loss of productivity, "pain and suffering".

I have heard that the insurance industry is taking it out on doctors because the insurers lost a bundle in investments. Maybe it's true.

I have heard the real problem is people in HMOs going to emergency rooms because they can't be bothered to make and keep an appointment with a doctor. If true, shame on them and fix this problem.

I have heard that Los Angeles offers not only emergency care, but a "suite of health services" to illegal immigrants, and it is exacerbating their budget problems. But, politically, nothing can be done.

Anyway, something is definitely wrong with the system. Someone is getting rich somewhere, and it probably ain't us.

That said, I know I want my Dish Network and GPS and OnStar and weather satellites. I want the improved computing power, battery technology, astronomical research, more jobs for engineers, more interest in the sciences -- and hell, the plain excitement of it.

I think some of you guys would rather "sell sugar water than change the world".

[McToast]

The United Stats of America is the wealthiest nation on the planet. We are the ONLY western industrialized nation that does not provide healthcare for all of it's citizens, regardless of employment status or income level. A healthy populace is is an asset to a nation.

Yes, it IS a disgrace, and the ones who can't see it are the ones who are covered and don't care about anyone else as long as everything is "okay" for them.

[2jaded2care]

Okay, take NASA's 0.7% of the budget and fix everything.

[2jaded2care]

I'm sorry you think that everyone who isn't in favor of "universal health care" doesn't care about anyone else. I can assure you that's not true. As I said, I do believe that there are many problems with our health care system. Not everyone is in agreement about the solution, however.

[idkew]

Originally posted by McToast
The United Stats of America is the wealthiest nation on the planet. We are the ONLY western industrialized nation that does not provide healthcare for all of it's citizens, regardless of employment status or income level. A healthy populace is is an asset to a nation.

Yes, it IS a disgrace, and the ones who can't see it are the ones who are covered and don't care about anyone else as long as everything is "okay" for them.

if every country is jumping off a bridge, should we do it too?

or, in other words, just because other countries do things one way, it does not mean that we have to do it that way also, or that thier way is right?

i also do not understand how a national HC system fits in a capitalist society. it seems much more like a socialist project. we already have a failing, socailist system on retirement planning. what makes universal healthcare any different than social security? imagine if our healthcare system went bankrupt and we could not afford primary care anymore?

plus, your comments sound like a) you think all rich people don't care that poor people live or die (patently false), and b) that you think the people who work for a living and have found personal success, should be forced to pay for everyone else. do you also believe in complete redistribution of wealth?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, many times they provide a fake SSN, not to mention they pay sales tax on everything they buy. I understand what you are trying to say, and to some extent I agree with you, however the AM radio rhetoric of illegals paying no taxes is a lie. You would do well to rethink that statement.

One question.

Are illegal aliens supposed to even be in the country to begin with?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I'm sorry you think that everyone who isn't in favor of "universal health care" doesn't care about anyone else. I can assure you that's not true. As I said, I do believe that there are many problems with our health care system. Not everyone is in agreement about the solution, however.

Of course not, but we should be able to at least agree on the problem -- then we can start talking about the solution. I think the problem is the millions of working Americans (42.5 million and growing steadily) with little or no access to health care. How do you define the problem?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
One question.

Are illegal aliens supposed to even be in the country to begin with?

You mean you don't know?

[2jaded2care]

Sorry IJ, I'm not an expert on the state (lower case "s") of the US healthcare system. I mentioned some of the problems of which I'm anecdotally aware. Guess I need to do some research.

I don't seem to recall this kind of clamor, however, about health care when I was growing up, so my inference (mistaken or not) is that the health care system did adequately work at some point in history. I don't know what changed; maybe it's just the "Me" generation getting creaky and whiny. Maybe the HMOs have thrown the system out of whack (they haven't always been around). Maybe it's outrageous profiteering on the part of someone (my suspicion, since usually where there's smoke...).

I can't really comment on your definition of the problem yet. I realize that a large percentage of working people are not happy with the status quo (really? Naw...). I don't know the numbers, or how many of those people choose not to carry health insurance (because they are young and healthy, etc.). I will try to find out, to have a more informed opinion. (I suspect, however, that the "facts" will depend largely on the "source" of the information.)

I do know that no one in this country, legal citizen or not, is denied emergency care, often taxpayer-supported. Would it be cheaper to extend this to preventive care? Probably. Is this another can of worms? Probably.

I did not know that space exploration was such a controversial topic. I guess lots of people consider it extraneous to their everyday lives. (I can tell you it isn't to many engineers, astronomers, science instructors or their families.)

I don't see why space exploration is the only subject that's got to be on the chopping block to fund health care. I don't consider it "up there" on the pork scale. Apparently many do.

I do know that getting rid of NASA will not solve the problem of health care in this country.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Sorry IJ, I'm not an expert on the state (lower case "s") of the US healthcare system. I mentioned some of the problems of which I'm anecdotally aware. Guess I need to do some research.

You don't need to be an expert in anything to know that tens of millions of working people in the US get no access to health care, and that number grows every year. And I don't mean emergency care -- I mean the kind of care that prevents emergencies. In fact, the loading up of the emergency care system with people who could have been better and less expensively treated before their conditions became acute is one of the major reasons the system is becoming unaffordable for an increasing number of people. We pay for that inefficiency, you know.

People who are lucky enough to have good health plans provided by their employers, or are young enough not to feel a need for it, are shielded from this problem. For now. But it will get to them, as they grow older and employers less and less willing to deal with the cost of providing health care. So it isn't a matter of being unhappy with the "status quo," it's about a system which is falling apart before our eyes, with nobody in government having the courage to admit it, let alone propose a solution.

This can of worms is already wide open.

[2jaded2care]

I'm trying to claim ignorance, but you won't have any of it. Gee, I would have thought my previous posts would have authenticated any admission of ignorance...

If the general population is as riled up as you folks seem to be about health care, I don't understand how politicians can ignore the problem(s) and stay in office.

If Bush ever thought proposing a new space initiative was going to be non-controversial, boy, was he ever wrong.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I'm trying to claim ignorance, but you won't have any of it. Gee, I would have thought my previous posts would have authenticated any admission of ignorance...

If the general population is as riled up as you folks seem to be about health care, I don't understand how politicians can ignore the problem(s) and stay in office.

If Bush ever thought proposing a new space initiative was going to be non-controversial, boy, was he ever wrong.

I suppose, but I'm not taking up this cudgel because of Bush's space program proposal. I'm already on the record here as being in favor of space exploration. I just think the timing is proposal is poor in terms of our ability to pay for it, and political. But I've said that already...

The general population is riled up about health care. This is the centerpiece of many of the recent job actions in the US (including and especially the long and bitter supermarket workers strike here in So. California). And clearly, this is just the beginning.

Health care has been high up on the list of concerns of voters for at least ten years now. The polls consistently show this. But as I've said before, we're not going to see real reform until the corporations demand it of their clients in Congress. I think that's coming.

[Dont Hurt Me]

corporations arent worried about it, all they have to do is move those factories to 3rd world countries or China and not worry about it. this is what is happening so the ones running Congress, the Senate and the President are making it happen. so in the end we loose jobs and still have no National Healthcare. I am for space exploration but we have to correct a few things before squandering billions in space. by the way how much did 2 space shuttles cost us?

[idkew]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
by the way how much did 2 space shuttles cost us?

i am not sure about the exact nomber, but i know it was WAY more than projected.

but- i just figured it all out. the gov can legalize marijuana. this way, we can release and pardon thousands of healthy workers from a costyl jail. we can stop spending billions a year on fighiting a drug which causes less problems than alcohol. then, we can put some nice and hefty taxes on marijuana, just as we do with alcohol and tobacco. opt in taxes are the best taxes.

all this new found money can go into a general fund which helps pay for the new federal insurance plan. this plan's cost will be based on a flat percentage of income, making it affordable to everyone. private healthcare will still be allowed, but it will be forced to become competitive with the new taxed money funded federal system or become obsolete.

ok, this would never work... but my point is that space travel is not the only expense we have in america. plus, funding HC with an unhealthy act is a unethical...

[mactastic]

Ah yes the sin tax. You know why those are so much easier to pass than general taxes, right? 'Cuz whatever portion of the population there is that doesn't engage in is likely to be overwhelmingly in favor it since they can benefit from a tax they don't have to pay! Not that I have a problem legalizing and taxing weed, it sure makes a hell of a lot of sense from a fiscal (and moral) perspective.

Lol, lets see how much farther we can get this post off-topic than it is now.

[McToast]

Originally posted by idkew
if every country is jumping off a bridge, should we do it too?

or, in other words, just because other countries do things one way, it does not mean that we have to do it that way also, or that thier way is right?

i also do not understand how a national HC system fits in a capitalist society. it seems much more like a socialist project. we already have a failing, socailist system on retirement planning. what makes universal healthcare any different than social security? imagine if our healthcare system went bankrupt and we could not afford primary care anymore?

plus, your comments sound like a) you think all rich people don't care that poor people live or die (patently false), and b) that you think the people who work for a living and have found personal success, should be forced to pay for everyone else. do you also believe in complete redistribution of wealth?

Other countries are doing things the right way.

P.S. And on a side note, with similar themes, I say, "No way in hell!" to school vouchers.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You don't need to be an expert in anything to know that tens of millions of working people in the US get no access to health care, and that number grows every year. And I don't mean emergency care -- I mean the kind of care that prevents emergencies. In fact, the loading up of the emergency care system with people who could have been better and less expensively treated before their conditions became acute is one of the major reasons the system is becoming unaffordable for an increasing number of people. We pay for that inefficiency, you know.

People who are lucky enough to have good health plans provided by their employers, or are young enough not to feel a need for it, are shielded from this problem. For now. But it will get to them, as they grow older and employers less and less willing to deal with the cost of providing health care. So it isn't a matter of being unhappy with the "status quo," it's about a system which is falling apart before our eyes, with nobody in government having the courage to admit it, let alone propose a solution.

This can of worms is already wide open.

Why don't you start a business that provides health care to these people that don't have health plans? Sounds like an opportunity that would make you rich.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Why don't you start a business that provides health care to these people that don't have health plans? Sounds like an opportunity that would make you rich.

They have those. They're called HMOs. And they work for the benefit of their investors, not for the patients, or even for the medical industry. And as a result, they make big profits and the quality of care goes down the toilet.

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, people with low to moderate incomes often go without health insurance simply because they can't afford the premiums, and if they have a less then perfect health history, they might not find an insurance company willing to offer them a policy at any price, let alone one they can afford. This process is known in the industry as "cherry picking," as anyone who's experienced the private insurance market knows. This situation only points out the massive perversity of a system that denies essential services to those who need them the most. Some of us think this system is an abomination; other's clearly think it's kind of swell, so long as they've got theirs.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Actually, people with low to moderate incomes often go without health insurance simply because they can't afford the premiums, and if they have a less then perfect health history, they might not find an insurance company willing to offer them a policy at any price, let alone one they can afford. This process is known in the industry as "cherry picking," as anyone who's experienced the private insurance market knows. This situation only points out the massive perversity of a system that denies essential services to those who need them the most. Some of us think this system is an abomination; other's clearly think it's kind of swell, so long as they've got theirs.

Mactastic and you can start a caring-HMO that offers health care coverage to these low-to moderate income people. Couldn't you provide them with the health care coverage that you and they think they deserve? Couldn't you make a caring-HMO that works to serve its policy holders instead of its investors?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Mactastic and you can start a caring-HMO that offers health care coverage to these low-to moderate income people. Couldn't you provide them with the health care coverage that you and they think they deserve? Couldn't you make a caring-HMO that works to serve its policy holders instead of its investors?

You must be working awfully hard at not getting this.

No, the market does not provide for these people, and never will. If market forces alone are allowed to determine who gets health care and who does not, a steadily growing number of people will be locked out of the health care system. Some people think this is a problem; others do not. I certainly know by now you are one who does not.

Since you are so candid about not caring, I suggest you propose this as a plank in the Republican platform. You might call it the "Let them Eat Aspirin" clause.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You must be working awfully hard at not getting this.

No, the market does not provide for these people, and never will. If market forces alone are allowed to determine who gets health care and who does not, a steadily growing number of people will be locked out of the health care system. Some people think this is a problem; others do not. I certainly know by now you are one who does not.

Since you are so candid about not caring, I suggest you propose this as a plank in the Republican platform. You might call it the "Let them Eat Aspirin" clause.

You are working awfully hard to justify your theft of my hard-earned money as well. Charity, I can understand. Voluntary contributions, I can understand. Theft is where I draw the line. Just because 50.1% of the people say its okay to take from the other 49.9% doesn't mean its not theft.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is still the 'law of the land'.

[IJ Reilly]

Ha-ha. Taxes are illegal then. Who'd have thunk it? I guess that means George Bush should be in jail -- he's spent $87 billion so far on invading and reconstructing Iraq, and I sure as heck didn't approve of that.

Look, why don't you just admit that you're a icy-hearted so-and-so? I mean, if you're going to be that way anyhow, why not drop the pretense and sew your withered conscience on your shoulder?

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Ha-ha. Taxes are illegal then. Who'd have thunk it? I guess that means George Bush should be in jail -- he's spent $87 billion so far on invading and reconstructing Iraq, and I sure as heck didn't approve of that.

Look, why don't you just admit that you're a icy-hearted so-and-so? I mean, if you're going to be that way anyhow, why not drop the pretense and sew your withered conscience on your shoulder?

No- the government has the POWER to tax. (thanks 2j2c)

Humm...

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

and

Amendment XVI
(1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.


Also- If you so believe in socialism or communism, i haven't dicided which i think you hold true, why is it that you live in a capitalist society?

[mactastic]

So if the gov't has the right to tax, lets tax and use it for health care. How is that stealing any more than taxing for corporate subsidies or social security?

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
So if the gov't has the right to tax, lets tax and use it for health care. How is that stealing any more than taxing for corporate subsidies or social security?

i am not arguing the legality of this tax. i am argiung two points:

a) a national healthcare system will in the long term harm medical care for all, and

b) nat'l HC, SS, and many other socialist systems have no place in the US. We have already proven 99% that social security is a bad idea. what makes nat'l HC any different? our population is only going to continue to grow. will our 280million person population be able to support the health needs of a 350million strong country in a century? I doubt it could.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
Also- If you so believe in socialism or communism, i haven't dicided which i think you hold true, why is it that you live in a capitalist society?

Ahh stepping right up to the edge of the 'love it or leave it' argument....

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
i am not arguing the legality of this tax. i am argiung two points:

a) a national healthcare system will in the long term harm medical care for all, and

b) nat'l HC, SS, and many other socialist systems have no place in the US. We have already proven 99% that social security is a bad idea. what makes nat'l HC any different? our population is only going to continue to grow. will our 280million person population be able to support the health needs of a 350million strong country in a century? I doubt it could.

You may not be, but Frohickey calls it stealing. That's the point I am responding to here.

[2jaded2care]

Arguing semantics again, government has the "power" to tax, not the right. People have rights, gov't has powers.

Admittedly I still haven't taken time to do my research, IJ. Seems like a herculean task, understanding this healthcare beast of ours... I'll admit to an initial bias of mine, that if government-provided health care (Medicare, Medicaid) is supposed to be the "safety net", and it isn't working, I'll have to be convinced that more government is the answer.

But, I'll try to keep an open mind. Maybe I will be convinced. We'll see.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ahh stepping right up to the edge of the 'love it or leave it' argument....

no- i am asking why a person with such beliefs chooses to life in the US. i was NOT telling them to leave. other places beileve in different ways of living. why would someone choose to live in a "hostile" place?

[mactastic]

So what rights do people have? We know life liberty pursuit of happiness and rkba. Are those the only rights people get?

[2jaded2care]

Does seem like this should be a new thread about healthcare, since space exploration seems to be at the bottom of everyone's priority list :(

[mactastic]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Does seem like this should be a new thread about healthcare, since space exploration seems to be at the bottom of everyone's priority list :(
Sure.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by idkew
no- i am asking why a person with such beliefs chooses to life in the US. i was NOT telling them to leave. other places beileve in different ways of living. why would someone choose to live in a "hostile" place?

What beliefs? What the heck are you on about?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Arguing semantics again, government has the "power" to tax, not the right. People have rights, gov't has powers.

Admittedly I still haven't taken time to do my research, IJ. Seems like a herculean task, understanding this healthcare beast of ours... I'll admit to an initial bias of mine, that if government-provided health care (Medicare, Medicaid) is supposed to be the "safety net", and it isn't working, I'll have to be convinced that more government is the answer.

But, I'll try to keep an open mind. Maybe I will be convinced. We'll see.

For the record, I haven't suggested any solutions. I'm just trying to find out if we can agree on a definition of the problem. Note, even asking this question make me a socialist in the eyes of some. Apparently, some questions weren't meant to be posed.

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
What beliefs? What the heck are you on about?

when you call anyone against nat'l HC icy hearted, it sure seems to me that you have communist tendencies.

oh- and don't take the word "communist" to mean soviet or chinese. i mean in the purest sense of the word. the ideal, utopic view of communism.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
when you call anyone against nat'l HC icy hearted, it sure seems to me that you have communist tendencies.

oh- and don't take the word "communist" to mean soviet or chinese. i mean in the purest sense of the word. the ideal, utopic view of communism.

How about calling it being a caring, empathetic human being instead?

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
How about calling it being a caring, empathetic human being instead?

because then IJ would not be calling those with different beliefs than his/hers cold hearted.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
because then IJ would not be calling those with different beliefs than his/hers cold hearted.

Well, if you're opposed to being an empathetic, caring human being, I'd call that "cold hearted." I certainly wouldn't call it being "capitalist."

I don't know why the word communism entered this debate at all except as a red flag buzzword that easily stereotypes, vilifies and disarms your opponent in one cheap swipe.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by mactastic
They have those. They're called HMOs. And they work for the benefit of their investors, not for the patients, or even for the medical industry. And as a result, they make big profits and the quality of care goes down the toilet. Mactastic says it all . look very close to what he says. HMO's are making money, they arent helping the patient, they are not helping the physician, they are a business so what do you think they have their eye on? its called the dollar. This goes double for the pharmaceutical companies. i worked in the medical field for 15yrs and my wife works in a pharmacy. Its time for National Healthcare no matter what the republicans,the lobbiest,the insurance companies,the drug companies, or HMO's tell you. Mactastic is 100% correct though it may look like the working is paying for the poor, the reality is we are paying for these corporations, big business and those millionaire CEO's.
Back to Space, get a healthcare package for all, get our butts out of Iraq, get back that surplus that George blew then lets talk about grand trips to mars. maybe by then we will have a reason and the technology to do it.

[mactastic]

Ah yes, the topic of pharmeceuticals hasn't really been discussed yet. (At least this time around;) ) Drug companies would definetly like to see you with a chronic condition that requires you to take one of their drugs for the rest of your life rather than actually curing you. Not that they are all bad, there is some good innovation from their R+D, but much of it is also done at universities and other publicly funded venues, so while I am subsidizing the developement of drugs I am also required to pay a premium price for them. Plus the drug compaines do things like 'favors' for doctors ranging from free samples and dinners to things approaching illegal kickbacks for prescribing one drug over another. There are many problems wrapped up in the health care debate, which is why it isn't easily solved. Not to mention some form of reasonable tort reform to keep malpractice insurance costs down.

[McToast]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
For the record, I haven't suggested any solutions. I'm just trying to find out if we can agree on a definition of the problem. Note, even asking this question make me a socialist in the eyes of some. Apparently, some questions weren't meant to be posed.

Well could be worse I suppose. He could have called you unpatriotic. :rolleyes:

[idkew]

Originally posted by McToast
Well could be worse I suppose. He could have called you unpatriotic. :rolleyes:

no- unpatriotic is when you criticize bush- come on you should know that! ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by McToast
Well could be worse I suppose. He could have called you unpatriotic. :rolleyes:

Apparently I now have "communist tendencies," which is a code-word for being un-American that I thought had gone out with old Tail Gunner Joe. I think somebody needs to cut down on their diet of talk radio, because they're losing their grip on reality.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ah yes, the topic of pharmeceuticals hasn't really been discussed yet...There are many problems wrapped up in the health care debate, which is why it isn't easily solved. Not to mention some form of reasonable tort reform to keep malpractice insurance costs down.

You are very correct in both points. Tort reform is very necessary. We don't need doctors quiting thier practices due to unafforadble insurance costs. Imagine if we could sue for millions when the cable company messes up your bill, (I, for one, would be rich), everyone is human, an unless there is gross negligence on the part of the physican, there is little reason for six figure litigation suits.

Per. Drugs also seem to cost more than they should. While I do not know what is spent on R&D, I do know that economically it is possible to lower the price of a product, and sell more, yet still make the same amount of profit. However, I am not sure if these economies of scale are present with controlled substances.

If you were to break down the overall cost of healthcare, my guess is that the insurance your doctor pays and the cost of the prescribed drugs, and the cost of med. equipment are near the majority of all bills.

[McToast]

Originally posted by idkew
no- unpatriotic is when you criticize bush- come on you should know that! ;)

It's unpatriotic to criticize the president huh? Well, he's eroded the seperation of church and state and everything else, why should free speech be sacred?

[idkew]

Originally posted by McToast
It's unpatriotic to criticize the president huh? Well, he's eroded the seperation of church and state and everything else, why should free speech be sacred?

IT WAS A JOKE!

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Apparently I now have "communist tendencies," which is a code-word for being un-American that I thought had gone out with old Tail Gunner Joe. I think somebody needs to cut down on their diet of talk radio, because they're losing their grip on reality.

and you need to move out of the 50's. notice how i excluded the russian and chinese ways of communism. i just love how you continue to put words in poeple's mouths. do you even know the defnition of communism?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by idkew
and you need to move out of the 50's. notice how i excluded the russian and chinese ways of communism. i just love how you continue to put words in poeple's mouths. do you even know the defnition of communism?

All I noticed was your ad hominem, sorry. That's what happens when you speak in cliches.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by idkew
Per. Drugs also seem to cost more than they should. While I do not know what is spent on R&D, I do know that economically it is possible to lower the price of a product, and sell more, yet still make the same amount of profit. However, I am not sure if these economies of scale are present with controlled substances.

It occurs to me that profits could be lowered and still the drugs would get produced. Low profit is still profit. If drug companies claim they cannot produce drugs for low profit, that is simple greed.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
and you need to move out of the 50's. notice how i excluded the russian and chinese ways of communism. i just love how you continue to put words in poeple's mouths. do you even know the defnition of communism?

Ok, but you really should know better than to throw the word communist around in a political debate. That word has been used to ruin peoples lives before, so don't be too surprised when the target of it takes offence. I'm sure you wouldn't have reacted too well if someone had called you a terrorist. And I do mean the nicest kind of terrorist, not like those al Qaeda ones.;)

Just pick a different word next time huh?

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, but you really should know better than to throw the word communist around in a political debate. That word has been used to ruin peoples lives before, so don't be too surprised when the target of it takes offence. I'm sure you wouldn't have reacted too well if someone had called you a terrorist. And I do mean the nicest kind of terrorist, not like those al Qaeda ones.;)

Just pick a different word next time huh?

yeah, i understand what you mean, and that is why i threw in the non-soviet part. but, what other word describes the belief in the good of the whole over the good of the person, but still reatins a bit of political beliefs? humanitarian is close, but does not convey political belief very strongly...

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by idkew
yeah, i understand what you mean, and that is why i threw in the non-soviet part. but, what other word describes the belief in the good of the whole over the good of the person, but still reatins a bit of political beliefs? humanitarian is close, but does not convey political belief very strongly...

IOW, your intention was to derail the discussion by offering up a vague and unsubstantiated insult instead responding to the question at hand.

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
IOW, your intention was to derail the discussion by offering up a vague and unsubstantiated insult instead responding to the question at hand.

no- this is what you have been doing.


I think somebody needs to cut down on their diet of talk radio, because they're losing their grip on reality.

Look, why don't you just admit that you're a icy-hearted so-and-so? I mean, if you're going to be that way anyhow, why not drop the pretense and sew your withered conscience on your shoulder?

Some of us think this system is an abomination; other's clearly think it's kind of swell, so long as they've got theirs.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
When was the last time you went to work and volunteered to NOT get paid for it?

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/walmart.lawsuit.ap/index.html)

Roe said many employees who had finished their work days were routinely locked inside stores until other workers had completed their jobs, allowing managers to encourage the waiting employees to pitch in "off the clock" so that everybody could leave.


Englund said managers were simply trying to encourage teamwork. "Off the clock is not necessarily evil," Englund said.

Said the lawyer for Walmart.

[mactastic]

Seperately, if you can't afford health care do you not deserve to live?

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/walmart.lawsuit.ap/index.html)

Said the lawyer for Walmart.

walmart is evil. i don't feel like finding the link, but they purposefully make it hard for their employees to get HC.

but- on the bright side, if you look at individual stores, WallyWorld is not doing that great. Each store has a few good years, then sales start to decline.

I hope that WallyWorld goes under. They bully manufacturers too much, and in the long run, I believe, WW is bad for the economy.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Seperately, if you can't afford health care do you not deserve to live?

to counter this statement, can you find me any studies on people who can not afford healthcare? do they smoke? do they have cable? do they drive an suv? do they have things they can't afford?

not all people spend their HC dollars on other things, but I have got to wonder if there is a signifigant amount of people who put healthcare second to their tv watching, smoking, drinking, and image (suv, designer clothing, jewelry...) Not to mention, those who are spending quite a bit a month of cigarettes are making their, and my, HC costs rise.

many people do not want to take responsibility for their actions and want to blame others for not being able to afford things. could this be a similar situation?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
to counter this statement, can you find me any studies on people who can not afford healthcare? do they smoke? do they have cable? do they drive an suv? do they have things they can't afford?

not all people spend their HC dollars on other things, but I have got to wonder if there is a signifigant amount of people who put healthcare second to their tv watching, smoking, drinking, and image (suv, designer clothing, jewelry...) Not to mention, those who are spending quite a bit a month of cigarettes are making their, and my, HC costs rise.

many people do not want to take responsibility for their actions and want to blame others for not being able to afford things. could this be a similar situation?
That's not a practical question, it's a philosophical one. It's a simple yes or no type of thing. If you can't afford a procedure needed to save you life, do you deserve to live or not?

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
That's not a practical question, it's a philosophical one. It's a simple yes or no type of thing. If you can't afford a procedure needed to save you life, do you deserve to live or not?

but you are not getting my point. i am asking if there are people out there who CAN afford HC, but prefer to spend this money sleswhere for "Wants" and then complain that they can not afford healthcare. I am not debating that there are poeple out there who, no matter what, can not afford HC.

[idkew]

maybe a type of "WELLfare" is needed. the government can look at gross income, and decide if you can not afford private heathcare. if this is the case, you may then join a federally subsidized HC system where you only pay say, $600 a year (or maybe a need based amount), instead of $1200+...

i am open to any solution BUT nationalized HC.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
but you are not getting my point. i am asking if there are people out there who CAN afford HC, but prefer to spend this money sleswhere for "Wants" and then complain that they can not afford healthcare. I am not debating that there are poeple out there who, no matter what, can not afford HC.

I'll deal with the point you raise later. In the meantime you are ignoring my philosophical question.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
maybe a type of "WELLfare" is needed. the government can look at gross income, and decide if you can not afford private heathcare. if this is the case, you may then join a federally subsidized HC system where you only pay say, $600 a year (or maybe a need based amount), instead of $1200+...

i am open to any solution BUT nationalized HC.

So you'd rather create a new entitlement program?

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
I'll deal with the point you raise later. In the meantime you are ignoring my philosophical question.

i feel that my previous post address your question.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
So you'd rather create a new entitlement program?

isn't that basically what nat'l HC would be for those not paying into it?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
isn't that basically what nat'l HC would be for those not paying into it?

So what are we arguing over then?;)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
i feel that my previous post address your question.

I don't. I feel your previous post insinuates that all those who can't afford HC are too stupid to budget correctly, or to lazy to work hard enough to afford it. Which is a point you got very upset with me for associating with you earlier in this thread.

Let's try again.

If, through no fault of your own, you find yourself in a situation where money can save your life and you have no money do you deserve to die?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Seperately, if you can't afford health care do you not deserve to live?
Concurrently, if you can't afford health care, do you deserve to force others to give it to you?

Insert food, clothing, shelter in place of health care...

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
So what are we arguing over then?;)

because, i do not want my HC quality reduced. call me an ass, call me what you will, but i want the best care i can afford. plain and simple. yes, others should get healthcare, but if this means i will be waiting for a week to get my broken leg set, a few months for my "non-immediately life threatening problem" test to be administered, this is not acceptable.

i do not plan on being a billionaire, but my middle to upper middle class income will provide me with better HC than a nationalized system could ever.

(just look at what canadians are forced to do. people pay out of pocket for procedures b/c it will be months of waiting in a queue to receive the procedure for free. people even die in these queues.)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Concurrently, if you can't afford health care, do you deserve to force others to give it to you?

Insert food, clothing, shelter in place of health care...

Lol, I notice no one will touch my question no matter how many times I ask it.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
because, i do not want my HC quality reduced. call me an ass, call me what you will, but i want the best care i can afford. plain and simple. yes, others should get healthcare, but if this means i will be waiting for a week to get my broken leg set, a few months for my "non-immediately life threatening problem" test to be administered, this is not acceptable.

i do not plan on being a billionaire, but my middle to upper middle class income will provide me with better HC than a nationalized system could ever.

(just look at what canadians are forced to do. people pay out of pocket for procedures b/c it will be months of waiting in a queue to receive the procedure for free. people even die in these queues.)

So would a reasonable solution be to have the gov't provide the most basic level of care universally, with 'cadillac coverage' available to those who have the money?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by idkew
no- this is what you have been doing.

These were my characterizations of some candidly admitted points of view, that people without health care somehow haven't earned it and therefore don't deserve it. But apparently, there's no small amount of cognitive dissonance going on here -- where some would like to disown the idea that health care should be a privilege reserved for the well off and healthy, but they can't quite get to the point where they're ready to admit that the current system will never deliver on any other basis.

Once again, I haven't proposed or even implied a solution, because as I've said so many times before, it makes no sense to talk about solutions when we haven't agreed on a definition of the problem. So all of your implication, inference and innuendo is based on nothing more then your own unwillingness to accept that a health care problem even exists.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Lol, I notice no one will touch my question no matter how many times I ask it.

I touched your question. In fact, I answered it.

Yes. If you cannot afford health care, then you do not deserve health care, and if it just so happens that you die because of the lack of it, yes, you deserve to die.

Same as when you cannot afford food, and you think its right to steal food from others, then you deserve to die as well.

You can shame me into contributing to you. You can put a convincing ad campaign for me to help you. But don't steal from my pocket and tell me that you are stealing for my own good (and back up that stealing with the threat of jailtime and death at the hands of government).

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
So would a reasonable solution be to have the gov't provide the most basic level of care universally, with 'cadillac coverage' available to those who have the money?

close to what i am saying, although your spin sounds a bit more harsh than mine.

but- i think people should still be RESPONSIBLE for their own healthcare. the government should only step in when it is not financially possible for this to happen. i hate the government telling me to do things. the government is here to make things run smoothly and protect our country. it is NOT here to dictate how we live our lives. it already has too much control over what we put in our bodies, now you want it to control how we keep our bodies healthy.

tell me, with a nat'l HC system, what is going to stop the government from prohibiting tobacco and alcohol since they are detrimental to our health and raise the amount it has to pay to keep citizens healthy? what else would get prohibited? would all cars be governed at 55mph since speeding can cause injury? will skydiving be outlawed?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Have you heard of medicaid? we are paying for that now for the poor. the problem is all this insurance money going into corporations pockets and millionaire CEO's while they are figuring out news ways to screw the patient in the name of the dollar. we would be better served in a national healthcare package where this excess money would be in the fund to help all. Everyone who is making profit off of sick and ill people dont want this. My wife and i pay a lot of money right now for healthcare we never use. where is this money going? into some fat corporation that is building its new factories over seas so they dont have to pay anyone anything and that CEO is still making his millions. Try taking some of these insurances we are paying for across the country and more then likely they will look at you like you are nuts with the answer of we dont accept that insurance company. so again why pay this money to a worthless insurance company who is telling Dr's how to practice? Mactastic you might as well give up as you probably are talking with a insurance saleman who is making a living off of other peoples sickness.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
My wife and i pay a lot of money right now for healthcare we never use. where is this money going?

Well, apparently, you like giving your money to the aforementioned fat cat millionaire, otherwise, you would not be paying your money for something you are not using. ;)

But, when you gave your money, you did so V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-I-L-L-Y.

There is the rub. Sure, make a National Health Care systemm, but make it voluntary. Just like the US Postal Service is paid for by people that send and receive packages. It can be done too.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yes. If you cannot afford health care... you deserve to die.

Thank you for your honesty.

That said, it's an utterly despicable and inhuman stance.

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So all of your implication, inference and innuendo is based on nothing more then your own unwillingness to accept that a health care problem even exists.

I am sorry that you can not see this.

Quotes from me:
Per. Drugs also seem to cost more than they should.
Tort reform is very necessary.
now don't get me wrong. the current system has problems.
As i said, the current system is not perfect

Humm, seems like I have said there is a problem, not once, but at least 4 different times. Once again, please think before typing.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
My wife and i pay a lot of money right now for healthcare we never use.

How would this change with a national hc system?

Also-
Should the US be a country where the government controls all lucrative industry? Or, should we allow private citizens to run businesses?

Remember, you do not have to pay your money to the CEO who is, in your mind, taking all your money. Do some research, find out what HC provider is spending most of the money it brings in on its subscribers. YOU have the power to change this practice. Get more people to do the same, and the rich CEO will have to change his/hers way to keep their job.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
How would this change with a national hc system?

Also-
Should the US be a country where the government controls all lucrative industry? Or, should we allow private citizens to run businesses?

Remember, you do not have to pay your money to the CEO who is, in your mind, taking all your money. Do some research, find out what HC provider is spending most of the money it brings in on its subscribers. YOU have the power to change this practice. Get more people to do the same, and the rich CEO will have to change his/hers way to keep their job.

Health care, for most, is still done through employers. You do not directly buy your healthcare even if you pay some or all of the costs.

There is essentially no free market going on in the healthcare industry. If I want a different healthcare provider, all I can do is ask nicely and hope the company cares enough about me as one person to change everyone over to a plan that fits my needs.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Look i worked in the health care industry and my wife still does, the insurance companies play every game in the book and i have seen it first hand. I would rather this extra money instead of building HMO'S, building those retirement homes for those CEO's,building those insurance companies go to help the patient and doctor. Its that simple. instead of the paperwork games they play and let me tell you they do play have that money go into a simpler National Healthcare system where you can go see any doctor not just the one the HMO is sending you to. That HMO is also telling that Dr how to practice his medicine and they are telling him to do this and do that. HMO's are not helping the patient nor the Doctor. They are helping themself first, the doctor second the patient third. this is wrong it should be the patient first.
This is ass backwards. Im not a Dean supporter( yet) but he was a physician and i do like what he is saying about lets get everyone in and then adjust it. If you are over 65 you are in (medicare), if you are poor you are in ( medicaid) now lets get those folks excluded in. A Lot of savings when you eliminate the middleman. HMO's & Insurance companies are the middlemen. their first priority is the Dollar not Healthcare.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Look i worked in the health care industry and my wife still does, the insurance companies play every game in the book and i have seen it first hand. I would rather this extra money instead of building HMO'S, building those retirement homes for those CEO's,building those insurance companies go to help the patient and doctor. Its that simple. instead of the paperwork games they play and let me tell you they do play have that money go into a simpler National Healthcare system where you can go see any doctor not just the one the HMO is sending you to. That HMO is also telling that Dr how to practice his medicine and they are telling him to do this and do that. HMO's are not helping the patient nor the Doctor. They are helping themself first, the doctor second the patient third. this is wrong it should be the patient first.
This is ass backwards. Im not a Dean supporter( yet) but he was a physician and i do like what he is saying about lets get everyone in and then adjust it. If you are over 65 you are in (medicare), if you are poor you are in ( medicaid) now lets get those folks excluded in. A Lot of savings when you eliminate the middleman. HMO's & Insurance companies are the middlemen. their first priority is the Dollar not Healthcare.

I'm with you on HMO's. They should be taken out into a street and beaten. They definitely make it harder for doctors to treat patients correctly and efficiently.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
Should the US be a country where the government controls all lucrative industry?

No, nor should it be a country where business controls government. Nor one where your freedom to choose a doctor is governed by what health care plan you have and what they feel is best for you.

Remember, you do not have to pay your money to the CEO who is, in your mind, taking all your money. Do some research, find out what HC provider is spending most of the money it brings in on its subscribers. YOU have the power to change this practice. Get more people to do the same, and the rich CEO will have to change his/hers way to keep their job.
This has been touched on already, but individuals don't often get the choice of HMO. If you are working for someone, you have to go with the decision they make. And in many cases the best plans are available from large organizations that can get good group rates. Small businesses are the ones that find it hardest to provide decent HC at a reasonable cost. Individuals have it even worse. That's not freedom in my book.

[Dont Hurt Me]

we have really gotten off space have we not? im pretty surprised even at myself because space is the future but as i get older i have started to see more of the problems we have. If Bush had not been such a fiscal liberal i would have gone for this 100%. Big business is running Govt and im seeing this more and more ( thank you George) Govt has to be brought back to the American worker not the corporation who is donating to your next election. Its obvious in so many ways, sugar industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the military complex, etc etc. Space has to be explored and understood but George's timing is very poor after he has spent so much. I still think the most important thing we can do concerning Space is to find the best way to get there. Scramjets, Nuclear power, Ion drives Elevators whatever but until we can break Gravity we will be pissing a lot of money away that can change lives. A better goal would to be develope antigravity. once this is done we can do anything go anywhere.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by idkew
I am sorry that you can not see this.

Quotes from me:

Humm, seems like I have said there is a problem, not once, but at least 4 different times. Once again, please think before typing.

"A" problem, but what problem? Do you regard the 42.5 million working Americans without access to health care to be a "problem" that needs to be "solved?" This is precisely the question (and the only question) I've been asking quite clearly all along -- not whether we need "tort reform," because that's not going to get us anywhere near providing universal access to health care. I'm sorry you can't see that.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by idkew
I'm with you on HMO's. They should be taken out into a street and beaten. They definitely make it harder for doctors to treat patients correctly and efficiently.

Oh great, and how are you going to accomplish this public flogging? For those who can still afford medical coverage, HMOs are about all we can afford.

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
"A" problem, but what problem? Do you regard the 42.5 million working Americans without access to health care to be a "problem" that needs to be "solved?" This is precisely the question (and the only question) I've been asking quite clearly all along -- not whether we need "tort reform," because that's not going to get us anywhere near providing universal access to health care. I'm sorry you can't see that.

you called it a problem, then you blast me for saying there are problems? do you even read what you and others post? do you think it is as simple as one problem? what else would one do with a problem? usually the answer is to solve it. something this big is not the result of one factor.

i'm done speaking with you, as you have no constructive thoughts. you continually turn criticism upon others, instead of adding to the conversation with a well thought out argument.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
we have really gotten off space have we not?

Of course we have, people don't know how to deal with this situation.

Liberals know that they should support the pursit of science but automatically detest anything Bush says or does regardless of content.

Conservatives know that they should automatically agree with Bush but be opposed to increases in Government spending.

As soon as the party leaders fire off some snappy partisan one-liners we'll have a great discussion of people firing off the same one-liners over and over again. At the moment however we have a complex issue with complex repurcussions and it is so much easier to just bicker about another topic altogether, especially in light of the rather miniscule amount of funding NASA will recieve over the next few years and the futility of socialized medicine in a Republican house.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I see the biggest problem right now is breaking gravity, once that is done the next one will be breaking the speed of light or warping space if you will if its even possible.
we have extremist on both side as you stated and neither are much help with public policy. I thought we would have gone further then we have in space travel by now. its a lot harder then us monday morning quarterbacks can imagine. its also costing a lot more. what Bush is proposing is great but we have to be able to get there in a better way. our focus should be on breaking the Earths Gravity in a better way then chemical propulsion.
I hate to bring this up but i think its being done now and not by us or anyone on this planet. we have to discover antigravity and once we do it will be what the computer was to industry.
We have pilots, former astronauts and even presidents that know something or someone else is up there and they are bending gravity. manipulate this and we have solved so many things. space travel,exploration,pollution,energy dependency on oil etc.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
our focus should be on breaking the Earths Gravity in a better way then chemical propulsion.
I hate to bring this up but i think its being done now and not by us or anyone on this planet.

while i do agree with you on this, it may take us 1 year, 100 years or 1000 years to figure this out. i do not think that just b/c we don't have the most efficient means of reaching escape velocity, we should put any space travel on hold. we should fund both system, and learn as much as possible while doing space travel, so we may add that knowledge to the new mode of transportation.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i agree i dont want us to put it on hold but on the other hand are the rewards worth the billions that we have allready paid to the shuttle program and the billions to follow in chemical explosions to space. we need a array of telescopes to watch space for science and incoming asteroids. we should have a plan to divert anything heading our way. do we need a base on the moon? do we need to go to mars right now? I would rather we work on getting to space and building on the ISS rather then political dreams and trying to shift attention due to politics. Dont forget that Jupiter just got slammed by asteroids a few years ago. what could we do now if we had a incoming? not a darn thing. but instead we are dreaming of grand political dreams instead of taking care of what matters most our loved ones and the human race.

[2jaded2care]

You never know, there may be more to Bush's plan than meets the eye.

The Chinese are making inroads into space.

Heinlein has already speculated about the possibility of "weaponizing" the moon (in a manner, anyway).

Of course, no country would dare attempt such a thing.

Just like they wouldn't risk developing their nuclear capabilities without clearing it with everyone else first.

Rrrright.

Oh well, just a thought to cheer everyone up... Have a nice day!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
You never know, there may be more to Bush's plan than meets the eye.

The Chinese are making inroads into space.

You make an interesting observation and certainly one I'd never considered. It's possible that this "space race" is as driven by geopolitical considerations as the last one. Come to think of it, the Bush plan sounds like quite a departure from the efforts of the last 10-15 years, with its decidedly international character. This plan looks a lot more like the space program of the 1960s -- with the US going it alone.

[Thanatoast]

To be both constructive and cynical at the same time: Bush is proposing to spend 1/187th on this program of what he has already spent on Iraq.

One billion dollars in the federal budget is a rounding error. If I'm not mistaken, much of the money will come from ditching the space shuttle and the ISS.

In all honesty, liberals should support this on principle. But principle and politics have little to do with eachother sometimes. In this case, if the Dems allow Bush to advance this initiative and look impressive, it will hurt their standings among the people, and they (and we) will be subject to more rule by Republicans who don't actually care about getting to Mars, they just want the political stature gained from proposing it.

It's all a giant political game, so traditional values of scientific inquiriy and fiscal resposibility do not apply. In the long run, Democrats must fight this proposal to keep from losing influence with the populace so that they can regain control of the government. But it's difficult to fight this fight, so, they're basically screwed, unless they get lucky.

I am in the same unenviable position of wanting to go to Mars, and not wanting Bush to get any credit for it. I will fight this proposal on totally cynical terms, not on merits. The current administration doesn't deserve the stature, so we should ditch it.

[McToast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I

Yes. If you cannot afford health care, then you do not deserve health care, and if it just so happens that you die because of the lack of it, yes, you deserve to die.



You are disgusting and despicable. You should apply for a job with the Bush Administration.

[mactastic]

I think the reason this debate got sidetracked into the issue of health care (and spending priorities in general) is precisely because we all agree that space should be explored. Heck, I've been advocating a boost in NASA funding for a long time now. It would go a long way towards boosting the interest in science and math among the youth again, an area we are not as strong in as we could be. But there are other issues tied up in spending priorities.

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Thanatoast


In all honesty, liberals should support this on principle. But principle and politics have little to do with eachother sometimes. In this case, if the Dems allow Bush to advance this initiative and look impressive, it will hurt their standings among the people, and they (and we) will be subject to more rule by Republicans who don't actually care about getting to Mars, they just want the political stature gained from proposing it.

It's all a giant political game, so traditional values of scientific inquiriy and fiscal resposibility do not apply. In the long run, Democrats must fight this proposal to keep from losing influence with the populace so that they can regain control of the government. But it's difficult to fight this fight, so, they're basically screwed, unless they get lucky.

I am in the same unenviable position of wanting to go to Mars, and not wanting Bush to get any credit for it. I will fight this proposal on totally cynical terms, not on merits. The current administration doesn't deserve the stature, so we should ditch it.

Well, at least you're honest about it, and you're not alone in your thinking if the polls are to be believed.

I understand your logic, but I disagree with it. Myself, as I said, I would support it regardless of who was President. And, if I were a NASA or aerospace employee or employee's family member, I would kind of resent the political opposition. (What are the chances of it getting past the Reps if it's not a Rep Pres proposing it?)

I would think that this would be one instance where everyone (well, okay, the Dems) could claim bipartisanship and both sides could claim victory. Or, they could at least just bottleneck it to force healthcare legislation forward...

I think we should just admit that the deficit is here to stay, and either one side spends the money or both do.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Thank you for your honesty.

That said, it's an utterly despicable and inhuman stance.

I couldn't agree more. I was stunned to see this opinion actually stated explicitly...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
we have really gotten off space have we not?...

Yes, coming late to this thread I've found this rather disheartening.

...I still think the most important thing we can do concerning Space is to find the best way to get there. Scramjets, Nuclear power, Ion drives Elevators whatever but until we can break Gravity we will be pissing a lot of money away that can change lives. A better goal would to be develope antigravity. once this is done we can do anything go anywhere.

While to some extent I agree, something must be said for just getting there.

As for developing antigravity, that's science fiction. There is nothing even in theoretical physics that gets anywhere close to such a concept...

Now, there are some theoretical ideas that would reduce the cost of boosting out of Earth's gravity well, but we're still decades away from them.

[Dont Hurt Me]

you may think its science fiction but somebody is doing it allready and it aint us. we will discover antigravity and like somebody said it may take 100 years.It just goes to show that Govt cant hardly do crap unless there is a military race( China) then all of a sudden they wake up. Nasa needs money i agree but i will also say that Nasa is a big beauracratic quasi military blind orginazation that cant see past its nose. chunks falling off the shuttle and the managers never thought a chunk could hit the leading edge of the wing?? who is running Nasa? politicians or engineers and pilots? i think we know the answer. they still need to clean that house if you ask me.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Of course we have, people don't know how to deal with this situation.

Liberals know that they should support the pursit of science but automatically detest anything Bush says or does regardless of content.

While I am a liberal, I don't detest what Bush has said. I'm simply suspicious. Indeed, I do note that his plan is only costing an additional $1Billion while he's in office (if he gets reelected). After that the price tag is necessarily going to sky-rocket (;)). So, Bush is going to get the glory for this project and not face the real price...

Conservatives know that they should automatically agree with Bush but be opposed to increases in Government spending.

Unfortunately, from what I've seen this tends to be true. However, my grandfather-in-law (who is a conservative and a Bush supporter) thinks that this is a terrible plan and the whole manned space program should be mothballed. (I avoid talking with him on this topic).

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
To be both constructive and cynical at the same time: Bush is proposing to spend 1/187th on this program of what he has already spent on Iraq.

One billion dollars in the federal budget is a rounding error. If I'm not mistaken, much of the money will come from ditching the space shuttle and the ISS.

Just as a point of order, the ISS and the shuttle are not being abandon. The shuttle fleet will remain in service until the ISS is complete, then, after more than twenty years of service, they will be retired until the next generation of spacecraft is ready.

As an interesting idea, I've heard a bit about the fact that the shuttle is the only craft capable today to help keep the ISS in orbit. So, what happens when the shuttles are retired? Well, what if one of the shuttles was left in orbit, docked to the ISS specifically for the purpose of boosting it when necessary. Also, perhaps it could be used as an orbital taxi, ferrying repair crews from the ISS to damaged satalites.

In all honesty, liberals should support this on principle. But principle and politics have little to do with eachother sometimes. In this case, if the Dems allow Bush to advance this initiative and look impressive, it will hurt their standings among the people, and they (and we) will be subject to more rule by Republicans who don't actually care about getting to Mars, they just want the political stature gained from proposing it.

As made apparent by the fact that Bush's regime won't see any of the real cost of this program (long term).

... In the long run, Democrats must fight this proposal to keep from losing influence with the populace so that they can regain control of the government....

I don't think that I agree with you here. By this argument, everything must be partisan politics. I honestly don't think that it is so...

I am in the same unenviable position of wanting to go to Mars, and not wanting Bush to get any credit for it. I will fight this proposal on totally cynical terms, not on merits. The current administration doesn't deserve the stature, so we should ditch it.

Well, I think that there are honest reasons to criticize this proposal based on its merits. Further, even if Bush were to get some credit for this, I think that it's in the best interest of our country and our world, in the long run (far longer than any credit will benefit Bush or the Republican Party) to really get back out into space in a big way. I'm just afraid that opposition to this proposal will have the same effect that the opposition to GHWB's proposal back in 1989 lead to the stagnation of the manned space program for 15 years. If we see another such stagnation, we might not see a man on the moon again for decades to come, and possibily not in our lifetime.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by McToast
You are disgusting and despicable. You should apply for a job with the Bush Administration.

Well... you are disgusting and despicable for advocating theft of private property from your fellow citizens and using government to impose your will on them.

In my scenario, some people get health care, some people don't, but no one gets their will imposed on the other. Mine respects the 5th Amendment.

In your scenario, everyone gets health care, but some people pay for the rest, and they get the threat of jail time, or death if they don't comply. Yours starts us down the slippery slope of mob rule.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you may think its science fiction but somebody is doing it allready and it aint us...

Uh, who?

I don't 'think' it's science fiction, I know it is. I'm a graduate student in Physics, and I know a little bit about gravity. Talk of UFOs and other nonsense doesn't phase me. Should me some real evidence of anti-gravity and I'll discuss it.

If, perhaps, your talking about the expansion of the universe, it's believed that that's due to the presence of dark energy, which is repulsive like similar poles of a magnet are. This has nothing to do with gravity, though, and wouldn't help us much with the prospects of getting out of Earth's gravity well.

For that matter, even if such a thing as anti-gravity were discovered and we could harness it, it would still be highly expensive to use as a means of getting something out of Earth's gravity well. This is simply a matter of conservation of energy, and the need to overcome the potential energy of the Earth's gravity well. If you're arguing against this, then you're arguing that the laws of physics, as every physicist knows them, are wrong at a fundamental level.

[IJ Reilly]

Not this argument again. You just stay out of our airports and off of our highway, ok?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I think the reason this debate got sidetracked into the issue of health care (and spending priorities in general) is precisely because we all agree that space should be explored. Heck, I've been advocating a boost in NASA funding for a long time now. It would go a long way towards boosting the interest in science and math among the youth again, an area we are not as strong in as we could be. But there are other issues tied up in spending priorities.

To get this debate back on track, and to pacify the NATIONAL HEALTHCARE people, I think the democratic way to do this are checkboxes on everyone's income tax returns, like the checkbox for contributing to the presidental campaign matching funds. One checkbox says check here if you want part of your income taxes to go towards providing everyone with health care. Another checkbox says to check here if you want part of your income taxes to go towards the space exploration missions.

This way, the ones that want to pay for national healthcare do, and the ones that want space exploration do.

And we can avoid having one side call the other side names. (And look at who started the name calling... sure wasn't the 'heartless' conservative/constitutionalist.) :D

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
...Yours starts us down the slippery slope of mob rule.

And you're starts us down the slippery slope toward anarchy. Might makes right. Everyone for themselves.

I think that there has to be a balance. We are a community and we take care of each other. That means that some people are inconvenienced, but it means that, as a whole, we are all better off.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
This way, the ones that want to pay for national healthcare do, and the ones that want space exploration do.


The flaw with this argument is that there is no consideration as to where money needs to go. To take this to an extreme, imagine adding the checkbox 'don't spend any of my taxes, simply return them to me'. How quickly would the US government run out of money?

There has to be someone to take care of budgetting. Unfortunately, that's what Congress and the President are for...

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
To get this debate back on track, and to pacify the NATIONAL HEALTHCARE people,

You mean, like BOB DOLE?

[Frohickey]

Bob Dole just wanted cheap viagra. :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
And you're starts us down the slippery slope toward anarchy. Might makes right. Everyone for themselves.

I think that there has to be a balance. We are a community and we take care of each other. That means that some people are inconvenienced, but it means that, as a whole, we are all better off.

Anarchy? Might makes right? I just want the choice to spend my money the way I see fit. What is wrong with that? How would you like it when I tell you that you have to give me a $100 a month, no strings attached?

I could be convinced to your way of thinking if we repealed the 5th Amendment. Care to start a campaign to get the 5th Amendment repealed, once thats done, I'll be the first to sign up to your national health care boondoggle.

[McToast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Anarchy? Might makes right? I just want the choice to spend my money the way I see fit. What is wrong with that? How would you like it when I tell you that you have to give me a $100 a month, no strings attached?

I could be convinced to your way of thinking if we repealed the 5th Amendment. Care to start a campaign to get the 5th Amendment repealed, once thats done, I'll be the first to sign up to your national health care boondoggle.

You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian.

NEWSFLASH: Your taxes pay for the roads and highways you use and (through property taxes) firestations and police and schools already, as well as many other things.

Did I call you a name? YES and you deserved it. You don't even deserve to be called human. Words cannot even express the depth and breadth of disgust I have for you. Others on here can be politically correct, but I won't be. You're a sick sick sick individual.

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
The flaw with this argument is that there is no consideration as to where money needs to go. To take this to an extreme, imagine adding the checkbox 'don't spend any of my taxes, simply return them to me'. How quickly would the US government run out of money?

There has to be someone to take care of budgetting. Unfortunately, that's what Congress and the President are for...

Have to agree with Snowy_River here. Yeah, I don't like where some of my money goes. But how many checkboxes would there be? Why one for space exploration but not for, say, free B&D apparatus for seniors? I'm sure there are many Dems and others who would rather not have funded our Iraq adventure... Seems this would create even more of a mess than we already have, if that's possible, IMHO.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Anarchy? Might makes right? I just want the choice to spend my money the way I see fit. What is wrong with that?

anarchy
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

By saying that you don't want to contribute to the government (i.e. pay taxes) you're saying you don't want a government. Thus, anarchy.

I know that I'm taking what you're saying to an extreme, but, as I said above, this is the slippery slope, and, IMO, you're several steps down that slope.

If you don't like what the elected officials are spending your taxes on, then elect other officials. If you can't then you're in a minority and either need to live with it, or move to a different country.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Care to start a campaign to get the 5th Amendment repealed
See: Drug War; War on Terror

McToast, the reason (I can only really speak for myself, of course) we try to be politcally correct is that name-calling and insults gets threads shut down. See: NRA Madness, last page.

Orignally posted by Frohickey
How would you like it when I tell you that you have to give me a $100 a month, no strings attached?
Except that's not how the system works. I wouldn't be directly handing you a hundred bucks a month no strings attached. My tax money would be divvied up and part of it would go to pay your medical expenses should you be unable to do it yourself. If my money goes towards war in Iraq, or keeping Americans healthy, I'm choosing keeping Americans healthly. Note: I do not support the reform bill recently passed that enriches insurance and drug companies.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I think that there has to be a balance. We are a community and we take care of each other. That means that some people are inconvenienced, but it means that, as a whole, we are all better off.

While I do agree that there does need to be a balance, why is it that the rich are always the ones who take on the burden?

I find it quite funny that whenever someone proposes a tax cut, the democrats call it a tax cut for the rich.

Here are the current income tax brackets:
Tax Income
15% $0 - $25,750
28% $25,750 - $62,450
31% $62,450 -$130,250
36% $130,250 - $283,150
40% $283,150 and up

doesn't it make sense that if you are cutting taxes, that when 3% of tax is relieved, that the top (rich) bracket saves the most money? democrats seem to forget this. more like ignore.

[edited out stuff not pertaining to my point]

so- my point is, who is it that must be inconvenienced? is it the person who has worked their ass of to achieve success? (money does not magically land in rich people's hands) my guess is that this is what you are asking for. i find it interesting that democrats are not interested in the poor to ever be inconvenienced. to them, it seems that people are poor because there are rich people out there. not that poor people have jobs because a rich person was able to create them.

plus, with a national hc system, these percentages MUST be raised. Should we raise each one 1.5% (per insured person)?

Well, that would be $300 in "insurance" costs for a poor ($20,000 income) person.
It would mean $4,275 in "insurance" costs for the lowest part ($285,000) of the top bracket. (I think these numbers go beyond an inconvenience, $4,275 is way more than any sane person would ever pay for health insurance.)
even for a middle, $50,000 income person, this tax hike is $750. ($150 more per person than what the might have previously been paying.)

this is why this would never fly. people end up paying more money. (example: my gf pays $600 a year for her employer provided hc.) the only people that benefit from such a program are the poor. there is no few inconvenienced, the majority are inconvenienced.

plus, what do we do with the tens of thousands of out of work insurance agents, adjusters, custodians at the company...? the government scan not hire each person.

(hope my calculations are correct :) )

[mactastic]

Sigh... Income tax is not the complete tax burden. Sadly this comes up time and again.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Sigh... Income tax is not the complete tax burden. Sadly this comes up time and again.

for the sake of simplicity i use income tax. sorry that i can not make you happy and figure in every tax dollar.

[McToast]

Originally posted by Thanatoast

McToast, the reason (I can only really speak for myself, of course) we try to be politcally correct is that name-calling and insults gets threads shut down. See: NRA Madness, last page.



It's okay I'm done with this thread anyway...*shrug*

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
To get this debate back on track, and to pacify the NATIONAL HEALTHCARE people, I think the democratic way to do this are checkboxes on everyone's income tax returns...

Ok, but I'm taking the extra printing costs for the 10 billion little checkboxes for each and every government spending program out of your tax return first. ;)

And I'm gonna tell everyone that it's your fault they spent the first two weeks of April getting carpal tunnel checking little boxes!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by McToast
You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian.

NEWSFLASH: Your taxes pay for the roads and highways you use and (through property taxes) firestations and police and schools already, as well as many other things.

Did I call you a name? YES and you deserved it. You don't even deserve to be called human. Words cannot even express the depth and breadth of disgust I have for you. Others on here can be politically correct, but I won't be. You're a sick sick sick individual.

Bwahahaha...
You are the one on the side of liberalism and you are calling me politically correct? Bwahahahaha!!!!

I know full well what my taxes are paying for. I also know which items my taxes pay for that I approve of. Universal healthcare is not one of them.

[mactastic]

He didn't call you politically correct. He said all of us who don't call you name are being politically correct.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
See: Drug War; War on Terror

McToast, the reason (I can only really speak for myself, of course) we try to be politcally correct is that name-calling and insults gets threads shut down. See: NRA Madness, last page.


Except that's not how the system works. I wouldn't be directly handing you a hundred bucks a month no strings attached. My tax money would be divvied up and part of it would go to pay your medical expenses should you be unable to do it yourself. If my money goes towards war in Iraq, or keeping Americans healthy, I'm choosing keeping Americans healthly. Note: I do not support the reform bill recently passed that enriches insurance and drug companies.

Actually, what we try to be is civil, not politically correct. I think that I have been civil in my posts, up until the point that someone else wasn't civil with me.

Yeah. The NRA madness thread started getting contentious, but my posts were civil enough.

The main issue here is that some think that government is the solution for every problem. Lack of adequate health care, government is the solution. Old age retirement, govt is the solution. While others, like me, think that government is the solution for only some specific problems, such as defense, post offices and post roads, courts, civil rights protection, etc.

[mactastic]

I've been civil as well. Even try to keep a sense of humor when I can. ;)

I'm not saying government is the answer to every problem, but for things like education and health care I think government is necessary because having profits drive medical decisions or educational ones doesn't work.

I've tried to start this little discussion before, but I think access to health care is a civil right. It stems from the right to live. I know you think poor people should die, but I don't. And I'm willing to pony up a little to make sure it doesn't happen.

So.. Do humans only have the rights spelled out in the US constitution? Life Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and RKBA? Are there others? Or is that it?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
He didn't call you politically correct. He said all of us who don't call you name are being politically correct.

Please.

Don't be politically correct. Just be civil and argue your point in a logical fashion. That is how we eliminate the extraneous stuff that blurs and distorts the core of the issue. There are issues where people can't see past their emotional blinders and that leads to mistrust and misunderstanding of the other viewpoint.

I tend to be able to get past the emotional aspects. Must have watched Star Trek and admired Spock. You must be Dr. McCoys. :p

Here is an article about Political Correctness (http://www.btimes.co.za/99/0207/columns/columns2.htm)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Please.

Don't be politically correct. Just be civil and argue your point in a logical fashion.

Please. I do. All I did was clarify your mistake. If you don't like it, tough. I'm more logical than you give me credit for.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I've tried to start this little discussion before, but I think access to health care is a civil right. It stems from the right to live. I know you think poor people should die, but I don't. And I'm willing to pony up a little to make sure it doesn't happen.

So.. Do humans only have the rights spelled out in the US constitution? Life Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and RKBA? Are there others? Or is that it?

Hate to tell you, but everyone dies. Not only poor people.

As to rights that humans have. Your rights ends where mine begins, and vice versa. If your right to have adequate health care starts to infringe upon my right to private property and just compensation, then you don't have that right to that extent.

I can't seem to find the url to a website comparing a final exam given to students in 19th century school vs one of the more modern final exams, but those 19th century school exam questions are difficult.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by idkew
...example: my gf pays $600 a year for her employer provided hc...

Well, actually, she pays more than that, as she would be getting paid more than she is if her employer didn't have to pay for her hc. At going rates, I'd guess she'd get about $1000 more per year, plus her $600 that she wouldn't have to pay anymore.

As an aside, I'd like to put forward the idea that we should distinguish between basic healthcare and healthcare. I'd guess that many employers would still contract with insurance companies to get additional coverage for their employees. This would make it a true benefit. Basic health care, on the other hand, would be just that, basic. It wouldn't be designed to be a catch all.

As a contrast, right now ERs are required by law to provide medical service to people who come through their doors in need. Where do you think the money to pay for that service comes from? That's right, taxes. So, right now our taxes go toward paying the emergency medical costs of people without insurance, whereas if they had had proper treatment earlier the total cost to the rest of us would have been, by some estimates, less than one tenth the amount. So, how is it inconveniencing anyone if it would actually lower nation wide net medical cost per person? And lower the health care burden on the tax base?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by mactastic
I'm not saying government is the answer to every problem, but for things like education and health care I think government is necessary because having profits drive medical decisions or educational ones doesn't work.

I'm inclined to agree. Making decisions about health care based strictly on financial outcome leads to things like HMOs. Also, it ultimately backfires. In other countries around the world where there is a basic national health care system they have lower per person national health care costs. Go figure...

But we've gotten off topic again. I really want to discuss space...

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
But we've gotten off topic again. I really want to discuss space...

i'm up for it, but we have had no "discussing" of space. throw something out to discuss. everyone is polarized right now. we have no opposition with which to carry on a discussion.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, actually, she pays more than that, as she would be getting paid more than she is if her employer didn't have to pay for her hc. At going rates, I'd guess she'd get about $1000 more per year, plus her $600 that she wouldn't have to pay anymore.

this is an optional plan. therefore, her business is not subsidizing her plan. if she decides to drop it, she can. she does not get a raise of $1,000

[Thanatoast]

The Mars Trilogy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553560735/qid=1074217011//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9169515-0322427?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Kim Stanley Robinson is an excellent series that talks, in the realistic near future, about the colonization of Mars. I highly recommend it. It's a science fiction story based more on science than fiction, and is as much about the people and the society they create as it is the technology. In other words, it's got a story worth reading, not just flash.

Robinson visualizes a permanent colony of 100 people as the first mission to Mars. He figures that a return journey is the most difficult part, and that if we're gonna go, we should go to stay.

[Frohickey]

Need to find water on Mars... that would make for fuel for any return trip, that is for a conventional engine.

Nuclear propulsion or ion propulsion could work, but that should only be used in the middle part of the trip where the radiation doesn't hurt anything but rocks that are hot with radiation already.

Now, how to do this. Make a railgun to shoot nuclear material at the moon. Then when the spacecraft is built, it can go to the moon to pick up some fuel and everytime it makes a trip to Mars, it leaves what it doesn't need for the lunar trip.

The problem is that we would have nuclear material unsecured on the moon. What if al Qaeda decides to steal some? :p

[2jaded2care]

Water on Mars would be great.

Evidence of past or present life on Mars (any kind of life) would seal the deal. Don't see how any rational, open-minded person could resist that temptation.

It could happen next week for all we know and change the entire scenario.

Here's praying...

[Frohickey]

You know, if that past life on Mars turned out to be dead dinosaurs and oil is found there, watch out NASA... Texaco is on its way :P

2008 robotic mission to Mars
2010 finish the ISS
2020 manned Mars mission

All of these sound do-able.

That, and a permanent presence on the Moon is a good idea. Is Martin Landau still around?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Water on Mars would be great.


There is every reason to believe that there is water ice on Mars, if only in the form of perma-frost. It's a necessary part of any planned colonization of Mars, and not for fuel. We'll need it to get the oxygen out of it.

Another good book about people on Mars is 'Birth of Fire' by Jerry Pournelle.

[2jaded2care]

Hopefully the pictures from Spirit and Opportunity (fingers crossed here) will help excite people, especially the young'uns.

Gotta download that Maestro soon...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Hopefully the pictures from Spirit and Opportunity (fingers crossed here) will help excite people, especially the young'uns.

Gotta download that Maestro soon...

I think that the pictures are somewhat exciting. But the real excitement is to think about the possibility of really going there, at least for me. I've always dreamed of going into space, walking on another world. But, the truth is, I probably won't do it. Not in my lifetime, not with how the space program has stagnated.

[Stelliform]

I found this article about some editorial reactions around the world for President Bush's announcement.

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3403581.stm)

Is everyone buying into George W Bush's intrepid vision of a manned mission to Mars? Some of the world's newspapers this week were clearly behaving like spoilsports.


"The US is preparing for the invasion of Mars and other planets," wrote the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah.

What I find amusing is that in all of the countries trying to belittle US space exploration, none of them can send a Person to space without either the U.S., Russia, or China's help.

[idkew]

sorry to get off topic again, but this comment is the exact reason there has never been, and probably never will be, peace in the mideast. their mindset over there says it all.


"The US is preparing for the invasion of Mars and other planets," wrote the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah.

[wwworry]

put a billion in the Philadelphia school system and it would lead to great discoveries.
Put 1.5 billion in and see how many stable marriages result from increased prospects.

It would truely be a great voyage.

(isn't Mars the god of war?)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by idkew
sorry to get off topic again, but this comment is the exact reason there has never been, and probably never will be, peace in the mideast. their mindset over there says it all.

I'm not sure whether or not to take you seriously. Certainly you can see that this comment was meant as a political tongue-in-cheek criticism of Bush policy elsewhere on this planet, can't you?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by wwworry
put a billion in the Philadelphia school system and it would lead to great discoveries.
Put 1.5 billion in and see how many stable marriages result from increased prospects.

It would truely be a great voyage.

(isn't Mars the god of war?)

Personally, I can't see it as being that simple. Throw money at this problem and it will go away.

No.

One of the greatest benefits from the manned space program has always been the inspiration that it has had on people to stay in school.

You need more than money to make school great...

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not sure whether or not to take you seriously. Certainly you can see that this comment was meant as a political tongue-in-cheek criticism of Bush policy elsewhere on this planet, can't you?

while i can agree with you on this point, this is not an unusual point of view when it comes to middle eastern countries and their beliefs of the us. news articles are typically spun, or you may call it propaganda.

i just ate and i am lazy, but i am sure if you go googling, you can see what i mean.

you can even refer to the united nations report on nation development (or something like that). they find that people in the middle east are generally pessimistic. not surprising though. i would be too if there were bombs going off every day in chicago.

i also wish i could remember the name of the national geographic documentary i was watching about the middle east. newly "tecno-ized" people are reading things on the internet and taking them as the truth due to the "patina of technology". one example of this is that many of the people interviewed believed that all jews were warned early by the government about 9/11 so they would not go into work and be in danger. people sincerely believed this. you and i both know this is ridiculous, but an uneducated person is easily fooled by such propaganda.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Personally, I can't see it as being that simple. Throw money at this problem and it will go away.

No.

One of the greatest benefits from the manned space program has always been the inspiration that it has had on people to stay in school.

You need more than money to make school great...

except we don't throw money at schools and we never have. THere are a couple of schools where they do throw money at them and guess what, it works better than not enough money.

So what you're hoping for is some vast cultural sea change and then magically everything will be all right. What about starting with some basic things like small class sizes, good buildings, and well trained well paid teachers? I'm sick of that "It's hopeless." talk while starving the districts.

Really, who cares if there are micro-organisms on Mars when kids here can't get a decent textbook? You claim the greatness of knowledge and yet deny it to thousands of children.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by wwworry
except we don't throw money at schools and we never have. THere are a couple of schools where they do throw money at them and guess what, it works better than not enough money.

So what you're hoping for is some vast cultural sea change and then magically everything will be all right. What about starting with some basic things like small class sizes, good buildings, and well trained well paid teachers? I'm sick of that "It's hopeless." talk while starving the districts.

Really, who cares if there are micro-organisms on Mars when kids here can't get a decent textbook? You claim the greatness of knowledge and yet deny it to thousands of children.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that we need to spend more money on education. I don't think that it's hopeless. However, there's a lot more wrong with the educational system than just lack of money, and I don't think simply saying 'let's spend money on schools instead of the space program' really solves anything. I think that both of these have to be made priorities. NASA's budget over the next five years is an average of about $17.2 Billion per year. Compare that to the fact that the budget for the Iraqui occupation is already on the order of $200 Billion. If NASA had had the same budget as has been invested in Iraq, we'd likely already have people on Mars. And, if history is any indication, we'd have more money available to invest in improving schools.

Anyway, I don't want to rant about this. About schools I don't think we disagree. I just object to anyone who places space exploration at what seems to be too low a priority...

[2jaded2care]

There's not enough money for schools.

There's not enough money for healthcare.

There's not enough money for some political candidates (see campaign finance reform thread).

There's not enough money for space exploration.

There's not enough money.

Not that I expect you guys to solve all the country's problems -- at least not to, say, Frohickey's satisfaction :) (we love ya, Frohickey, even if we deserve to die!)... but, when and how will there ever be enough money? Or is this imperfect system the best we can hope for?

I know it's something of a zero-sum game. Of course Congress hocks us up to our googly-eyes, but pretty much, more money for defense or schools or NASA is less money for something else which seems important too. I'm not saying we can't prioritize, but to hear it, we can't ever have enough money. Can we? Without trampling personal property rights? How?

Or is it just like most personal budgets -- the more we make, the more we "have to" spend?

Just askin'

[wwworry]

I should say that I do support the space program and I have seen in so many cases where people/agencies with nothing are pitted against eachother. I am guilty of implying that the space program should be gutted for education programs.

My reaction was based on the feeling that Bush's Mars program was just an election year promice that he won't have to pay for and does not really care about. This is a guy who consistently muzzles science agencies (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55833) when he does not like the facts and someone who consistently proposes things but never provides funding for them (no child left behind, aids funding). In short, if there is no money for big business in this program it is probably not going to happen.

Meanwhile, we do have a crisis in k-12 education funding. We have had one for years. Why not fix it?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Not that I expect you guys to solve all the country's problems -- at least not to, say, Frohickey's satisfaction :) (we love ya, Frohickey, even if we deserve to die!)... but, when and how will there ever be enough money? Or is this imperfect system the best we can hope for?

Can we? Without trampling personal property rights? How?


Huh? Since when have I advocated wealth redistribution or having government solve everyone's problem?

Personal property rights, if it were only observed with as much vigor as 1st Amendment and other civil rights would go a long way to solve these problems in an equitable way. But somehow, we treat property rights as second hand rights As Janice Brown, (may she be confirmed in the future) said...
"Theft is still theft even when the government approves of the thievery," she declared. "The right to express one's individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion."


As to 'deserving to die', my answer to that is what William Munny told Bill Daggett in 'Unforgiven"... 'deserves got nothing to do with it'. :D

I think I've elaborated my feelings with regards to forced wealth redistribution.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think I've elaborated my feelings with regards to forced wealth redistribution.

like the $1.50 charge to access your own money?

or tax deductions on vacation homes?

or the $90 billion/year on corporate subsidies/welfare that will kick up to $175 billion/year after the medicare for HMOs plan starts?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
...Personal property rights, if it were only observed with as much vigor as 1st Amendment and other civil rights would go a long way to solve these problems in an equitable way...

Not to pick on you, Frohickey, but this is an argument that I've had with certain others before. Historically, we've tried treating personal property rights as fundamental. What was the result? The poor became second class citizens, and even indentured workers, hardly better than slaves. Child labor ran rampant. The rich tended to look down on the poor as worthless, and rarely gave to charities to help them.

That system didn't work. It certainly didn't solve the problems that we're talking about. If anything it made them worse. Now, we're trying a new system. It's not working great, either, but it is working better. In time we'll try something else new. Hopefully it'll be even better. The greatest thing about the system of government in the US is that it's constantly changing and growing. Sometimes it takes steps in the wrong direction, but that's part of the process.

"We have created a system in which every four years there is a peaceful revolution."

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, it's nothing new. Property rights are not absolute, and neither are any other rights. A system of absolute rights is unsustainable, if only because rights will inevitably come into conflict, and one will have to yield to another.

[2jaded2care]

Frohickey, as a failed Libertarian, I try to agree with you in theory, but theory and reality often collide.

In a Libertarian society (which seems to be your leaning), gov't would provide less, but individuals and charities would step in to fill the gap as much as possible. (At least I hope you would prefer that charities help those unable to provide for, say, their healthcare costs due to catastropic illness or their own poverty.)

The problem is that once gov't decides to provide a basic "safety net" for the absolute bottom rung, there is the creeping call to provide for the next rung up, ad infinitum, as we witness now. It's very hard to draw a line and say "this much gov't is enough, we don't need more". And taxpayers see their money going away and figure, I can't afford to donate to charities anymore. So you get an endless loop of more gov't and less charity.

I don't know any answers. I do know that most people are not going to agree with your statement about people "deserving" to die if they cannot afford healthcare. However, I myself have a really really really hard time looking at anyone born after the Surgeon General's cigarette warning, who's dying of lung cancer after smoking their lungs out, and saying, "That person deserves my money to help with their health care costs."

[IJ Reilly]

I've never run into a defrocked libertarian before. :)

Yes, responsible democracy is a hard work. It doesn't provide the nice neat answers, with all of the loose ends tied up, that some seem to desire. The lines are not meant to be drawn, they are designed to be moveable.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Actually, it's nothing new. Property rights are not absolute, and neither are any other rights. A system of absolute rights is unsustainable, if only because rights will inevitably come into conflict, and one will have to yield to another.


One of my favorite pet peeves is that people often talk exclusively about their rights, without talking about what, in my book, must go hand-in-hand with any talk of rights. That is, of course, responsibilities. If you're going to exercise the right of freedom of speech, then you must embrace the responsibility in using your speech wisely. You do not, for example, have the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater, simply because it is not responsible to do so. If you want to have the right to own a gun, then you must be responsible with it.

It is when responsibilities are neglected that rights must be modified.

In the context of our discussion, if you want the right to keep your own money and not have it distributed for general health care, then you have the responsibility to help provide for those less fortunate than you. If you don't, then the lower class will eventually revolt, as it will slowly grow larger and larger. It is the right of the upper classes to make more money, but it is their responsibility to help elevate the standard of living of the lower classes. This responsibility was severely neglected about a century ago, and the government stepped in and modified the rights of the upper classes (and eventually even the not-so-upper classes) to take care of the responsibilities.

In some sense, I believe that the only true rights we have are the rights to make our own choices (with full knowledge of the consequences of those choices), and to die. Everything else falls into the range of being negotiable within the societal system in which we live.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
The problem is that once gov't decides to provide a basic "safety net" for the absolute bottom rung, there is the creeping call to provide for the next rung up, ad infinitum, as we witness now.

I think that it's not so much a question of always asking for the next rung, so much as it's a question of what is a 'basic' safety net? The on going debate, as I see it, is about trying to find the right amount of provision to truly be a basic safety net. I don't know of anyone who would argue that all health costs should be covered for everyone, including elective and cosmetic surgeries. From what I've read, Oregon's health care system is an admirable stab at getting it right.

And taxpayers see their money going away and figure, I can't afford to donate to charities anymore.

Well, even in times of tax cuts or disasters, people don't give that much to charities. There have been studies that show that when there is some kind of disaster more money isn't given to charity, it's just given to different charities.

Even if all the money that was going into health care from taxes were suddenly refunded to the tax payers, is there anyone here that thinks that the same amount would then be donated to charity health care organizations? I certainly don't.

However, I myself have a really really really hard time looking at anyone born after the Surgeon General's cigarette warning, who's dying of lung cancer after smoking their lungs out, and saying, "That person deserves my money to help with their health care costs."

There's a two edged sword here, though. First, in theory, their medical expenses are being paid for by the taxes on the cigarettes that they, themselves, have bought over the years. A huge percentage of the price of a pack of cigarettes is taxes. Second, again in theory, the money from the settlement with Big Tobacco is supposed to go toward that, amoung other anti-smoking things. Now, while theory isn't perfectly in line with reality, it may be true that some significant portion of the road that you drive on to go to work was paid for with cigarette tax dollars. So, it's a little hard for me to accept your argument that your tax dollars shouldn't pay something back.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
It is when responsibilities are neglected that rights must be modified.

In the context of our discussion, if you want the right to keep your own money and not have it distributed for general health care, then you have the responsibility to help provide for those less fortunate than you.

How about the responsibility of those less fortunate to NOT be a burden? Or is responsibility only required of the fortunate ones?

[Thanatoast]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=5&u=/nm/20040118/ts_nm/space_weapons_dc)
U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground





Sun Jan 18, 2:27 PM ET



Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan to expand the exploration of space parallels U.S. efforts to control the heavens for military, economic and strategic gain.

Apparently the hawks are happy about the return to space because now we can "develop, operate and maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space, and if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."

I can't believe we're going to militarize the one place left that isn't already bristling with weapons and national animosity. Even Bush's moonbase pissing contest is better than this "we will dominate you" ************. Why is it that the first thing we think of when we find a new opportunity is to fight over it?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How about the responsibility of those less fortunate to NOT be a burden? Or is responsibility only required of the fortunate ones?

How about the notion that rights & responsibility don't apply to being dealt bad health or good health. It's not a choice one makes.

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
How about the notion that rights & responsibility don't apply to being dealt bad health or good health. It's not a choice one makes.

who was it that said life was fair? ..it happens.

it is NOT the government's responsibility to insure that, if life goes wrong, you are ok... unless i missed something in the constitution or bill of rights.

[pseudobrit]

When this nation was founded, there was a system of communities where those who fell on hard times were taken care of.

We've lost this system of community.

Saying, "oh, it's too bad you got cancer, little Jimmy. Life's not fair, and since your parents are poor too, you're going to die even though we can cure it, because only those with money to pay for their lives are going to be able to save them" is essentially what you're advocating.

I'm against the idea that life (or health) is a commodity. I'm sorry for those who feel it is.

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
When this nation was founded, there was a system of communities where those who fell on hard times were taken care of.

Exactly, communities. NOT the Government!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
One of my favorite pet peeves is that people often talk exclusively about their rights, without talking about what, in my book, must go hand-in-hand with any talk of rights. That is, of course, responsibilities. If you're going to exercise the right of freedom of speech, then you must embrace the responsibility in using your speech wisely. You do not, for example, have the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater, simply because it is not responsible to do so. If you want to have the right to own a gun, then you must be responsible with it.

Exactly so. You should read the book "Rights Talk" by Mary Ann Glendon. In fact I think every American should. She makes a very lucid and informed argument for a better way to discuss rights in our society. I've been recommending this book for years and lent my copy out numerous times.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029118239/qid=1074486625/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-3765280-4525447?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
How about the notion that rights & responsibility don't apply to being dealt bad health or good health. It's not a choice one makes.

How about the ones that drink lots of liquor?
How about the ones that smoke a lot of cigars?
How about the ones that jump out of planes?
How about the ones that have sex with lots of strangers?

You see, we can't spy on people to see if that is what they did. That would be an affront to the right to privacy.

Now, I would not be averse to having a set of basic needs given when a person is down on their luck, and govt can be the one to help too... but if its in the form of a loan that has to be repaid.

Or a govt account that the person contributes to while they are not down on their luck that they can draw upon when their luck is bad (obviated if the person is responsible in their spending and saving habits).

How about a cap on welfare benefits? After that cap is reached, you cannot collect anymore, and it has to be repaid afterwards. This would give the 'safety net' that you like to talk about, but it also doesn't become a neverending entitlement.

What if everyone suddenly wakes up and decides to go on the government dole?

[IJ Reilly]

How about answering the question?

The proposition's been advanced that health care should not be commodity item, because few choose to have poor health. I'd add to that the thought that having access to adequate health care so one might remain above ground is far more essential to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then any weapon you might want to own. Yet you've vigorously defended the right to the latter, but treat the former like a luxury item.

[Frohickey]

The overriding difference is that all of the proposals for universal healthcare is via more taxes, instead of fees that are paid by people who choose to participate.

Also, in RKBA, there are no costs incurred by the people not willing to participate.

Come up with a healthcare program that you would support wherein unwilling people can choose to withdraw from the plan and NOT incur a cost, and I'd support that.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
...How about a cap on welfare benefits? After that cap is reached, you cannot collect anymore, and it has to be repaid afterwards. This would give the 'safety net' that you like to talk about, but it also doesn't become a neverending entitlement...

Now, I'll be the first to say that the current welfare system leaves a lot to be desired. However, I don't think that means that it ought to be abolished, as you seem to argue. I think that some form of reform is in order.

Perhaps something like making job training and job searching a paid position under welfare. That way, the system would be designed to get people back into the work force. Plus, it could limit the amount of welfare that's paid out to be based on how many hours in a week were spent training/searching. Certainly this would make a somewhat more complicated system. Certainly this is merely an outline of an idea. But this is also an attempt to make the current system better at what it's supposed to do, help people out when they're down on their luck, and get them back on their feet.

In a way, I feel sorry for you, Frohickey. It's clear that the dollar is the most important thing to you. To me this represents the breakdown of American culture and society at the core philosophical levels. It's this type of attitude that is most likely going to bring about the collapse of the United States. And it will be a collapse from within, if it happens, not from any outside force. Even more than feeling sorry for you, Frohickey, I feel sorry for the world because of the degredation of values that you represent.

Now, having said that, I'm sure that you'll get angry and be insulted. If you must, then take out that anger on me. It won't change my feeling of sorrow and loss that has come from listening to what you've had to say.

Peace.

[idkew]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
... few choose to have poor health.

i don't choose to be jobless. should the government be paying me to not work since the economy is so bad? remember, its not my fault! i didn't ask for no job.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
. It's clear that the dollar is the most important thing to you. To me this represents the breakdown of American culture and society at the core philosophical levels.

Remember, this country was founded because of the dollar (ok, not the dollar, but the pound). Our forefathers rebelled because there was taxation without representation.

Sounds like it is related to someone taking your money. I think this is what Frohickey wants to prevent. They added the protections for property in the Constitution for such instances. It is not the government's job to care for the health of its citizens.

If you have a moral need to help these people, there are ways, but there is no need to make the populous pay everything for people who supposedly can't pay for X on their own. Once someone gets X for free, they are going to believe they are entitled to Y for free, as well as others believing they should be receiving X and Y for free instead of paying for others.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The overriding difference is that all of the proposals for universal healthcare is via more taxes, instead of fees that are paid by people who choose to participate.

Also, in RKBA, there are no costs incurred by the people not willing to participate.

Come up with a healthcare program that you would support wherein unwilling people can choose to withdraw from the plan and NOT incur a cost, and I'd support that.

In terms of what should be a "right," I think you've made an arbitrary distinction. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between government activities with costs and those without cost, nor does is make participation in our system government voluntary. We fought a little war over that proposition.

FWIW, I'd like to see Medicare/Medicade coverage become available to all Americans who wished to enroll.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by idkew
i don't choose to be jobless. should the government be paying me to not work since the economy is so bad? remember, its not my fault! i didn't ask for no job.

As a matter of fact, the government does do this. It'll pay you unemployment. This, of course, isn't a limitless resource and has some strings attached, but it is the government paycheck for being unemployed.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
As a matter of fact, the government does do this. It'll pay you unemployment. This, of course, isn't a limitless resource and has some strings attached, but it is the government paycheck for being unemployed.

i am jobless, not unemployed, there is a difference. AND, the employer pays for the unemployment checks, not the government, even though the cash comes from the government.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by idkew
Remember, this country was founded because of the dollar (ok, not the dollar, but the pound). Our forefathers rebelled because there was taxation without representation.

And that's a point that I made earlier. I told Frohickey that if he didn't like the way the Government was spending his money then he should word to get someone elected who would change that. If he couldn't then his views weren't representative of the general population. Given that, he'd have the choice between leaving, ie moving somewhere where the general population agrees more closely with his views, or just living with the fact that he's not in a majority.

Regardless, representation does not mean 'I get things my way'. If you made more money than anyone else in the country, everyone else could vote to have you taxed at a much higher rate. You'd still have representation, but it wouldn't be worth much.

Finally, I'd submit to you that the if you read just about any analysis, there is a general consensus that it is the poor, not the rich, who are under represented in Washington. If you start to argue for representation, then you're not arguing Frohickey's case.

... It is not the government's job to care for the health of its citizens...

Hmm... Funny that. How do you interpret this...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

... for people who supposedly can't pay for X on their own...

And now you're suggesting that they really can pay for health care? That their poverty is, in some way, a deception?

Oh goodness...

[idkew]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowy_River
Regardless, representation does not mean 'I get things my way'.


that is why i said the words "related" and "think". i would have used stronger words if i meant it to be absolute.


Finally, I'd submit to you that the if you read just about any analysis, there is a general consensus that it is the poor, not the rich, who are under represented in Washington. If you start to argue for representation, then you're not arguing Frohickey's case.


I have gathered that you believe that the poor outnumber the rich. How is it that the rich get their way then? No matter what the rich can pay to people, "lobbying", i do not see how they could beat a mobilized majority. i have no bad feelings for those who are underrepresented due to their lack of political action. if you don't vote, you get NO say.



And now you're suggesting that they really can pay for health care? That their poverty is, in some way, a deception?


not everyone is preventable, but if i am paying fro someone's lung cancer, someone's burnt out liver, this is a choice they made. under a nat'l hc sys., we could not turn away abusers, as a private hc system can.

i also might be allowing someone who can pay for a reduced premium to get cable, buy a new car... because they new qualify for free hc under a fed system.


edit- also, i do not think that the writers of our constitution meant the gov. should provide for advanced cancer treatment when they said general welfare. this is obviously up for dabate, but based on the rest of the constitution, i think these guys were for laissez faire.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by idkew
i am jobless, not unemployed, there is a difference.

un·em·ployed
adj.
1. Out of work, especially involuntarily; jobless.


job·less
adj.
1. Having no job.


Okay, so what's the difference? You're involuntarily out of work. Unless you're saying that you're self employed but have no clients. In that case, you're choosing to continue to be 'employed' while you have now work. So that is your choice.

AND, the employer pays for the unemployment checks, not the government, even though the cash comes from the government.

Unemployment is not paid by employers. It's paid for by taxes (referred to as unemployment taxes, or, sometimes, unemployment insurance taxes). It is true that this is a tax made based on every pay check that it written, but it is paid by both the employer and the employee; both pay half. Now, the length of time that I've been working doesn't have a direct bearing on how long I can draw unemployment. I can easily draw more unemployment than I (or my employer on my behalf) ever put in. Plus, if I never go a day in my life without working, I'll never draw unemployment, but I wouldn't be able to get any of the money back that I spent so many years of my life paying into...

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Okay, so what's the difference? You're involuntarily out of work. Unless you're saying that you're self employed but have no clients. In that case, you're choosing to continue to be 'employed' while you have now work. So that is your choice.

The way I understand it, jobless people have not had a job, therefore the can not get unemployment.

Unemployed were laid off or quit. Laid off workers can receive unemployment.

I recently graduated college. I have yet to find a "real" job, one with benefits and all. Therefore, I am jobless. My internship neither gives me benefits, nor money.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by idkew
The way I understand it, jobless people have not had a job, therefore the can not get unemployment.

Unemployed were laid off or quit. Laid off workers can receive unemployment.

I recently graduated college. I have yet to find a "real" job, one with benefits and all. Therefore, I am jobless. My internship neither gives me benefits not money.

Okay, you are unemployed but you're not eligible for unemployment. This has to do with the fact that unemployment is based on how much you make when you are employed. Again, it's an imperfect system. I would argue that you should be eligible, but, last time I checked, I'm not in charge of these things... ;)

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Snowy_River

There's a two edged sword here, though. First, in theory, their medical expenses are being paid for by the taxes on the cigarettes that they, themselves, have bought over the years. A huge percentage of the price of a pack of cigarettes is taxes. Second, again in theory, the money from the settlement with Big Tobacco is supposed to go toward that, amoung other anti-smoking things. Now, while theory isn't perfectly in line with reality, it may be true that some significant portion of the road that you drive on to go to work was paid for with cigarette tax dollars. So, it's a little hard for me to accept your argument that your tax dollars shouldn't pay something back.

Taking the thread further off-topic (or does it even matter at this point?), this has always irked me. If gov't is going to justify shaking down big tobacco on the basis of increased health costs, gov't has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to spend that money on those health costs or efforts to reduce smoking. To shake down industry, then throw that money into a general fund, or use fictional "surplusses" for anything other than what it was intended for, is dishonest at best, and in this case, evil IMHO.

While not necessarily evil, I also object to tolls being used for anything other than paying for construction or maintenance of said road. If there's a surplus, reduce the toll, end the toll, whatever. The implicit assumption is that the "tax" will be used for its stated purpose. (Georgia has a Republican governor for the first time since Reconstruction, partly because of this exact situation.)

Back on-topic, it wouldn't surprise me if our new space initiative is partly based on the presumption of launching or preventing (more?) space-based weapons. We don't know everything about every payload that's gone up there. There have been reports from respected sources about the possibility of satellites being able to target individuals on earth with energy enough to kill them, while making it seem like death from another cause...

I think space-based weapons are inevitable, if not already extant. Why would space be considered sacrosanct? The deep seas are not...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
There have been reports from respected sources about the possibility of satellites being able to target individuals on earth with energy enough to kill them, while making it seem like death from another cause...


Funny, that, as I've read several scientific papers that outline why such weapons are effectively impossible. Put simply, the Earth's atmosphere acts as a scattering field. The more of the atmosphere an energy beam has to travel through the more dispersed it gets. This is also one of the significant limiting factors that effect ground based telescopes. But, anyway, the papers that I've read have said that it's virtually impossible to provide a tight enough beam to destroy an ICBM when it's in the upper ionosphere, let alone being able to hit anything on the ground.

My goodness. Ever since the President made his announcement about the new space initiative I've heard some of the most interesting bits of science fiction, usually being passed off as science fact. And, no, not even most of them have been heard here. But it does give an interesting measure of where the public's general understanding of science is at...

[2jaded2care]

Sorry, just realized that you said "cigarette taxes", not referring to the states' litigation against the tobacco companies. Flew off a bit too early there...:) I was against the litigation (shakedown), especially after it became obvious that there would be no good-faith effort to use the funds for their supposed purpose. "Sin taxes", however, I look at as regressive but somewhat "voluntary" taxes...

Of course, after I typed that reference to satellite weapons, I did a google to try to find the URL which I can now not remember (was some months ago). I could swear it was from a mainstream science website, not a paranormal -- or paranoid -- one. Hopefully I bookmarked it on another machine, so I don't look like Fox Mulder here... I thought it was referring to a MASER or other DEW. However, your point makes sense, so until I can back it up from a "reliable" source, I will have to agree it seems suspect...

[2jaded2care]

Okay, through looking for that URL for tonight. Can't find it, will try more tomorrow. But go to www.janes.com (respected source IMO) and search for "dew weapon". Scary enough. Or do a general search for HPM "high power microwave" (not on Janes, though, that's a dead end) and ignore the obvious trash. Interesting methods of "crowd control"...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Okay, through looking for that URL for tonight. Can't find it, will try more tomorrow. But go to www.janes.com (respected source IMO) and search for "dew weapon". Scary enough. Or do a general search for HPM "high power microwave" (not on Janes, though, that's a dead end) and ignore the obvious trash. Interesting methods of "crowd control"...

Oh, I don't deny that energy weapons are coming, just that it would be possible to target a single person with one from orbit. The beam scatter would mean that to have a beam powerful enough to kill a person would probably also injure if not kill anyone within a fair radius of that person.

[idkew]

my question is:

why is it so bad to militarize space? i think it is inevitable that this will happen. i would rather see my country in the forefront of this technology, not lagging behind. don't get me wrong, i would love peace, but i also like security. security comes from prevention. prevention comes from forward thinking.

once again, i don't want war in space. i also want to be/feel safe at home. i don't want to worry about an attack. i do not think we can trust others not to attack us, so why not attempt to defend against any attack? i think this is only prudent, as long as spending for such programs are within reason.

also- if it means that we can save one american life in a war by use of a space weapon, in most cases i will be for this use of a weapon. as long as there is no large environmental destruction, innocent casualties..., lets save some grunt's life, at the cost of some money. really, what is a life worth? lets spend some money, maybe a billion or four, and save an enlisted man's life. (btw-i see the nat'l hc arguments coming ;) )

[Thanatoast]

idkew, I disagree with your definition of security. Being able to blow up the other guy before he can blow up you isn't really security, it's a promise of retribution, and we've already seen that this method doesn't always work.

You say we cannot trust others not to attack us, but look at our actions. If you were the leader China, and you saw that your biggest rival (who you already distrust greatly) is putting weapons into space that can vaporize your countryside and you have no defense against them, what are you going to think? Especially when your rival begins talking about "denying access" to ally it's own security concerns. Holding a sword over someone's head may get you what you want in the short term, but in the long term, you're asking to be rebelled against. In other words, putting weapons into space is the quickest way to get everyone else to put weapons into space, and then we start fighting over who gets to do what, when, and where and voila! Insta-war, all over again.

There's also the more philosophical argument, which is: why do we get to decide what the rest of the world does in space? Who gave us the right? Are we so afraid of our neighbors that we must threaten them and not allow them the same rights in space that we demand for ourselves? Guess so.

[idkew]

bush has had quite a few good ideas about hc.

i like the anti national hc stance.

i like the small businesses banding together for better insurance idea.

i like tax deductible premiums.

i don't think ted did.

boo to drug testing is schools.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
In a way, I feel sorry for you, Frohickey. It's clear that the dollar is the most important thing to you. To me this represents the breakdown of American culture and society at the core philosophical levels. It's this type of attitude that is most likely going to bring about the collapse of the United States. And it will be a collapse from within, if it happens, not from any outside force. Even more than feeling sorry for you, Frohickey, I feel sorry for the world because of the degredation of values that you represent.


Hehehe... I see that someone else has fallen into the trap of personal insults because they couldn't argue the facts.

Let me return the sentiment, since we are into falling into personal insult traps.

In a way, I feel sorry for you, Snowy_River. It's clear that taking something that doesn't belong to you in your mistaken belief that it would help is the most important thing to you. To me this represents the breakdown of American culture and society at the core philosophical levels. American independence, American can-do-it-iveness. It's this type of attitude that is most likely going to bring about the collapse of the United States. And it will be a collapse from within, if it happens, not from any outside force. Even more than feeling sorry for you, Snowy_River, I feel sorry for the world because of the degredation of values that you represent.

If you have children, or young ones, what would be the outcome of this experiment.

Front lawn is smaller than the back lawn. You pay $2 to get the front lawn mowed, while the back lawn $1. Two kids. One is 13, the other is 8. Younger can't mow the front lawn because its too big. But you give both $2 for mowing the lawn. How long before the 13 year old decides to mow the back lawn instead of the front lawn.

Snowy_River, you are not the first one that say that you feel sorry for me or disgust, etc. I stand by my assertion that it is wrong to steal/take away someones belongings. It does not matter that its to be used for, if its to enrich the thief, or its given to the poor. Its the same thing. Theft is theft.

If helping the unfortunate is your goal, then that could be accomplished in other ways where you are not stealing from Peter to give to Paul. Paul stealing from Peter directly is bad. Govt stealing from Peter to give to Paul is even worse.

How about the idea of govt loans, which is to be repaid, for the unfortunate ones with poor health, no jobs, etc? This could be self-funded, but I guess its not as satisfying as having the govt show the rich folk who's boss. That just sounds like the Communist revolution.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
In terms of what should be a "right," I think you've made an arbitrary distinction. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between government activities with costs and those without cost, nor does is make participation in our system government voluntary. We fought a little war over that proposition.


What?!!!:confused:

Article I Section 8. Chockful of government activities and how they are to be funded at the very beginning of Section 8.

I guess I didn't attend public school where they treated the US Constiution as a 'living document'. Would have been nice. I would have been able to get straight As in english. Easy to do that if you can change the meaning of words.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Hmm... Funny that. How do you interpret this...

quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison - 'father of the Constitution.

How do you like your crow cooked? Baked, sauteed, fried, boiled, fricaseed or plain old barbequed? :D

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
There have been reports from respected sources about the possibility of satellites being able to target individuals on earth with energy enough to kill them, while making it seem like death from another cause...

Thats why tin-foil hats were invented, to be able to reflect the energy... and prevent mind-reading beams.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison - 'father of the Constitution.

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but I have not been advocating that the government have unlimited powers with respect to 'general welfare'. I have been advocating finding a balance. I know that 'too much' socialism doesn't work very well, and is, on the whole, a bad thing. So is 'too much' capitalism.

So, please don't try to paint me as an extremist. Yes, that makes your point of view easier to defend, but it is simply not true.

I have a couple of questions for you. How do you feel about public education? And food stamps? Extrapolating from other opinions you've stated, I'd guess, and this is just a guess, mind you, that you'd be in favor of eliminating both of these programs, as well. After all, aren't these programs just another form of the government taking money from Peter and giving to Paul?

If I'm wrong about your opinion of these programs, please let me know. I would consider these positions, and the ones that you've stated yourself, fairly extreme. I don't see much balance in them.

The fact that the only way that you're able to argue with me is to try to paint me with an extremist brush, it seems to me, bespeaks the weakness of your argument. I'm not a communist, and certainly not arguing for any kind of revolution. I'm not arguing for the government to have unlimited power. Indeed, all I am arguing for is for the idea of basic health care to be amoung those specifically enumerated powers.

Even now, after having written this, I know that it won't do anything to change your mind. I'd guess that's why so few people are left posting to this thread. They've all realized that it's pointless to further the discussion.

Oh, and, for the record, I don't see how saying that I feel sorry for you, or that it seems that the dollar is the most important thing to you, or that this view is, in my opinion, a degredation of values, is really an insult. Can't I feel sorry for you? Can't I feel that to hold the dollar so highly valued that, rather than give a few of them up you'd rather let the poor people who don't have enough of them to pay for their health care simply die, is a degredation of values? These are simply my opinions. You are the one who has ventured into insults with the redirection of my words, thereby mocking me.

I don't know that I have much more to say to you, Frohickey. I do feel sorry for you. And that's not a malicious statement, it is an honest grieving.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but I have not been advocating that the government have unlimited powers with respect to 'general welfare'.

I don't know that I have much more to say to you, Frohickey. I do feel sorry for you. And that's not a malicious statement, it is an honest grieving.

Hehe... pretty nifty debating style stating 'compassion' but not addressing the issue on hand. Tell you what, leave the personal feelings and just debate the issues.

You try to rebut idkew's statement It is not the government's job to care for the health of its citizens.
with the beginning sentence of the US Constitution, trying to mold the 'general welfare' clause into something it was not meant to be, as evidenced by the quotes I posted.

Ratify a Constitutional amendment saying that government is responsible for the health of its citizens, and I'll acquiese. But until that point is reached, its definitely not in the compact/accord reached between the people and government.

Yes, there has been governmental creep into areas it shouldn't be in. Its been on going for a long time now, and has been accelerating since FDR's first term.

The balance that you try to get is not indicated in the US Constitution. Its still the law of the land, and if the balance is not there, then its not supposed to be.

As to painting you an extremist. Nothing of the sort. I just write to the points that I see, if it paints to extremism, then so be it. Let the reader decide. I'm not the one saying the general welfare clause encompasses health care. I actually say its not, and that general welfare is limited in scope, as other constructionists would say.

As to the communist revolution, what happened in the two that we know off. State confiscation of property and life from the rich to give to the poor. The rich in pre-Lenin/Stalin Russia had their property taken, lives too. Same in China. Same thing happening in Zimbabwe. Its also common mantra by Democrats to denounce and denigrate the rich, to divide people along financial means. (Nevermind that prior to CFR, the percentage of contributions to the Democrats is dominated by big money contributors. You'd never hear that until you dig into it.)

Finally, as to valuing the dollar, its not really so much as valuing the dollar but valuing the fruits of MY labor. A slave's labor does not belong to him, and so, its not valuable to him, but it's of value to the master. There is absolutely nothing wrong with valuing the fruits of one own's labor. Pride in the work comes along as well.

I value my labor more than I value another person's health. Much like I value my health more than another person's labor. No where did I say that I do not volunteer the fruits of my labor to causes other than my own. There is the BIG difference here. Welfare proponents have always assumed that welfare opponents are uncaring brutes. Us, uncaring brutes, know the value, and also know when and how much to contribute VOLUNTARILY.

I would not presume to know how much you value your labor/health and force you to give it to outside causes. I'm not your master.

[wwworry]

except people like you usually don't volunteer.