Search
Not Logged In
0
Your Username:
Your Password:

[ sign up | recover ]

Discussion Forums » Political Debate
Scott Brown & Massachusetts
0 likes [|reply]
23 Jan 2010, 22:37
Chris
Post Count: 1938
You're not seeing the difference between a totalitarian (and authoritarian) oligarchy and a working communistic society. You can't say a dictator is running everything and being a general dick, and then call that a communist country. It doesn't work that way. With certain ground rules and a constitution, communism and socialism are two, perfectly feasible types of society.
0 likes [|reply]
24 Jan 2010, 09:31
Transit
Post Count: 1096
The UK has an NHS, we aren't a socialist country.
0 likes [|reply]
25 Jan 2010, 21:45
kein mitleid
Post Count: 592
China is only Communist in social policy, but they are very much capitalist when it comes to economics.
0 likes [|reply]
23 Jan 2010, 22:10
American
Post Count: 221
Now, I have briefly read of a system of gov't called regulated capitalism. At least I think that is what it's called. The brief bit I read, it seemed to be alright..but I haven't really read much about it..because I only saw it today. Perhaps you know of it?
0 likes [|reply]
24 Jan 2010, 17:36
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
But there's plenty of countries with public healthcare systems, who have had those systems for over 50 years (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and we've not become communist countries. That's ridiculous.
0 likes [|reply]
23 Jan 2010, 21:53
Chris
Post Count: 1938
Dude, I am going to say this in the most respectful way I can. Don't yammer on about equality when you made a crap point about proposition 8 in your above post.

You don't pay taxes for health care right now. Taxes go to the government. The money that comes out of your paycheck goes to the insurance companies, who can decide to drop you because you didn't have the right kind of insurance you never got to choose anyway. Assuming you are getting health care at your job and didn't pick it up yourself.

And they are not going unnecessarily without health care. They don't have it because they choose not to.

You're flat out wrong. Just letting you know. This is not an opinion. You are wrong.
0 likes [|reply]
23 Jan 2010, 22:04
American
Post Count: 221
I haven't made any points on proposition 8. I was merely asking a question. All I know, and I mention this willingly, is that prop8 stated that CA will only recognize a man and a woman. It was voted on. I asked, shouldn't it be voted on? Since when was a question a "crap point?"
0 likes [|reply]
24 Jan 2010, 17:32
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
I am against gov't health care because it takes from the ones who are paying taxes for it and gives it to those who don't give a flying fart about anybody but themselves, who don't pay taxes, who don't do anything for the community.

No it doesn't, it takes from everyone who pays taxes and gives healthcare to EVERYONE. Sure that includes some people who are not currently paying taxes, but do not forget that many of those people have found themselves unemployed as a result of the recession or just bad luck and may have spent many many years paying taxes. Of course some people will abuse the system... but how can you justify punishing (and effectively KILLING) those who have NOT abused the system, just to punish those who do abuse it? Do tell me, how is that OK?

I earn a good wage, I pay my taxes, and still I pay less in taxes towards healthcare than I would pay if I was American (to hospitals or insurance companies). How can I complain about that? I'd still much rather live here and have the benefits of our healthcare system than live in America and give all my money to insurance companies who don't care one bit about my healthcare (and then still spend a fortune in deductables anyway).

And maybe one day I'll find myself less fortunate... maybe I'll find myself unable to work for some reason. Why should I then be denied healthcare just because you want to punish the small number of people abusing the system? There's only one way to describe your attitude and that's selfish.

And from someone who is already living in a country with public healthcare... I see only a minority of people abusing it (and remember I provide that healthcare, so I have a pretty good view of what's going on).
0 likes [|reply]
23 Jan 2010, 22:45
The Ryan
Post Count: 415
Haha!! I especially love all the American Bloop moms who get all boastful about their "natural birth." When in fact they shelled out THOUSANDS for their kid to be born. What part of that is natural!?
0 likes [|reply]
22 Jan 2010, 06:53
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
0 likes [|reply]
25 Jan 2010, 21:56
kein mitleid
Post Count: 592
It seems to me that most people for health care believe that it is a right. This is not the case. While it is the right of people to have ~access~ to healthcare, it is not a right for it to be free. The only rights justifiable in the laws of man are those which protect the individual from others. If we can agree there are three kinds of laws: 1) Those which protect the individual from others, 2) Those which protect the individual from himself, 3) Those which force the individual to help others.

The first quite obvious only makes sense to be practiced. The second applies to drug use, but also things such as gay marriage, assisted suicide, and so-called dignity rights among others. The last kind were created by those in favor of redistributing the wealth. These include things such as social security, welfare, etc.

In a truly free society, the only laws which are just are those under the first category, as the rest are an assault upon the idea of liberty.
0 likes [|reply]
25 Jan 2010, 23:01
Chris
Post Count: 1938
2) Those which protect the individual from himself
...but also things such as gay marriage


0 likes [|reply]
25 Jan 2010, 23:02
Chris
Post Count: 1938
Also: WE MUST SAVE THE HOMOSEXUAL MEN FROM THEMSELVES, OR THEY MIGHT GAY MARRY!!!
0 likes [|reply]
26 Jan 2010, 01:33
kein mitleid
Post Count: 592
... I'm not sure what you're implicating here, but I made it perfectly clear that I am not against gay marriage, as I only stand for the first group of laws -- those which protect the individual from others.

As for the term "gay marriage," it is an oxymoron, as the dictionary definition is a union between man and woman. Redefine the term marriage, and I'm all for it, but in the meantime, I'm against the term, and thus the reality. In the meantime, we can all "respectfully insult" eachother.
0 likes [|reply]
26 Jan 2010, 01:43
Chris
Post Count: 1938
Then the dictionary needs to be changed and the language surrounding the concept evolved. I've never made the argument that the law has been misinterpreted, except to say that "all men are created equal."

Anyway, we take the libertarian route, and all we do is hand a bunch of money to corporations. It's the only reason why I wanted to put health care at least partially in the hands of the government. Sure, the right can scream socialism, communism, fascism, or any scare-tactic, propaganda word Fox News uses on a daily basis, but if you want to be realistic, a government option gives good competition to quality health insurance and could lower the prices for everyone.
0 likes [|reply]
26 Jan 2010, 01:45
kein mitleid
Post Count: 592
If they deregulate the insurance mess, competition can take over, resulting in lower prices. However, at the moment, many have only one or two choices for insurance (as you cannot have insurance across state lines) which is nonsensical, and yet another instance of government meddling.
0 likes [|reply]
26 Jan 2010, 01:51
Chris
Post Count: 1938
The only problem I, personally had was I had more than two choices, except they were comparing their stupidly high rates. If I were an insurance company, I'd be sitting comfortably in my chair right about now while competing with another company who's prices are 4 times a reasonable rate.
0 likes [|reply]
25 Jan 2010, 23:23
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
So who's protecting the people from the money hungry insurance companies?
0 likes [|reply]
26 Jan 2010, 01:28
kein mitleid
Post Count: 592
How about they protect themselves through prudent decision making and removal of nonsensical legislation created by a nonsensical government?

Since you're not from America, you might not be aware, but dire financial situations have pretty much always been caused by government meddling here, through either outright legislation, or nonsense economic policy.
Post Reply
This thread is locked, unable to reply
Online Friends
Offline Friends