What are we doing!? (Little Upsilon)

Umma had a problem with sharing with the other kids when a youngster.


This is another overlooked part of the problem, over emphasis on the "self". I guess this is called selfishness.

Do you have a problem with sharing Umma?

Solookmon, you seem to be straying off topic. I do get the subject matter is related in how you display it in this argument, but what relevance does this really have to healthcare, or better yet, the reform of it.

nanna...

actually I'm not, lets look at what the topic is titled: General: What are we doing!?

I'm clearly telling you what we are doing.

You're original post had NOTHING to do with health care what so ever beyond an example of "poor form" but you decide to pick and choose who you're going to force topic upon? -does't work that way. Especially when my post more directly answers why people might be behaving in the manner in which you describe.

I guess we should have all been strictly glued to "Children. A documentary on ABC"?

You should have been bitchin' and moaning long before I got to tell you what "We are doing!" in regards to swaying topics.

On free speech:
I'm going to tell you what I'll tell any new world order creep out there. My free speech? It's given to me by God as an inalienable right and no government and certainly not you are going to take it from me without the shedding of blood. Now knowing this you can assume that there's no way in hell I'm going to let you bully me to conform to YOUR world view, or to promote it through me by silencing me or restricting what I can or cannot speak about.
Have a nice day!

Damn straight I do Inanna. Why should I share my hard earned capitalist (I'm going to work hard for it) dollars with socialists (I'm entitled to it).

There are always some exceptions, like providing for those who are not capable to provide for themselves(i.e. mental/physical handicaps). But since these are exceptions rather than the rule this is why any successful form of society must have capitalism as it main focus, with underpinnings of socialism.. not the other way around. History has and will prove me right.

"nanna...

actually I'm not, lets look at what the topic is titled: General: What are we doing!?

I'm clearly telling you what we are doing."

No you aren't. Who is this "We" you speak of. The We I was speaking of was "Lawmakers" and "HealthCare". You think "TheBig Flouride Deception" has anything to do with the Topic I started? LMAO gimmie a break.

I haven't bullied anyone here. I pointed out that you are getting off topic. I enjoyed the video, and its content, but still the fact remains, that it is off topic.

But the real question is this, sense you seem to be so touchy . . .

"Solomon, would you like a nuke up your ARSE!!"

Of course it all depends what people mean by "socialist" here?
Nazi Germany, Austria (pre Nazi) Yugoslavia (when it existed)
gee even Australia (pre Vietnam)
it all depends on how Socialism is defined

Thats what I was thinking.
So I had a look at the definition of each system in my Collins English Dictionary.

So
Capitalisum is an economic system based on the private ownership of industry.

Communisum is the belief that private ownership should be abolished and all work and property should be shared by the community.

Socialism is a political and economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.

Then I started thinking..............
How about implementing all 3 into one system?

We could implement the theory of socialism to deal with our social issue's like giving the unemployed something to do, jobs for the prisoners and criminals. Even social service for volunteer's who want to help make money for their community.

The theory of Communisum for the public sector like hospitals, roads, police. Where any profit made gets re-invested into the community. And the theory of Capitalisum for the private sector. Where business's would be free to manufacture and trade all those things that you can see around you for a personal profit.

Money from the profits made from the Socialist sector and tax's from the personal profits from the capitalist sector would help pay for the Communist sector, which would help anyone thats needs it.

Interesting thoughts, nix.

I think that it's easier to embed communistic entities in capitalist societies than to embed capitalistic entities in communist societies. Couples and families can be very communistic. A legal partnership owning say a law firm or a factory can be as communistic amongst themselves as they choose. In the US there are still a few communes scattered around--they usually produce some sort of product to sell in order to buy from the outside the things they can't make themselves.

A capitalistic entity inside a communist country? Don't know of any.

Sigh... Wendy,

This forum has a "public option"

lol

Good point Nix and good follow up Jojo. When you think about it there are many entities currently in the U.S. that are already 'socialized'. The largest of which are the army and elderly care (Medicare) as well as the postal service. The conservatives will be quick to point out that the postal service is running in deficits at this point, but I would counter that if UPS or Fedex were required to deliver to every American household for less than $0.50 per letter, there is no way that they could do it either. The private sector gets involved in these things with the ability to pick and choose what will be profitable while having the ability to exclude the pieces of the market that will not be profitable. This is exactly what is happening with healthcare today. The private sector picks and chooses the most profitable people to cover, excludes those that are considered too high of a risk and then the government (or those of us who do have insurance) end up picking up the bill. Did you know that on average each American family pays about $1000 per year in additional insurance premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured already? This cost is excessively high because the uninsured wait until they are so sick or injured before they get care and they go directly to the most expensive place to receive care, the emergency room.

Anyway, I would personally prefer a single payer system similar to the systems that exist in those crazy communist countries like Canada, the UK and France (there is actually one European country that I can't remember at the moment that has a system where all healthcare is private but non profit and there are multiple choices for each consumer but the government is the 'single payer' to the non profit insurance companies). Since that is not going to happen a public option seems to be a completely reasonable compromise.

Oh...now I am le tired...

I have read this thread with interest. I like to apply philosophical categories to debates because it helps see what the argument is really about. It seems to me that this is a debate over the extent of the Social Contract.

When a society forms a government, the individuals must surrender a portion of the individual sovereignty to the state. At the bare minimum, it requires us to give the state enough power to defend us from one another (crime) and from outside power (foreign policy).

However, the Social Contract extends to providing for more and more services, including transport, education, etc. The debate over health care in the US is really a debate over the extent of the Social Contract. Should it extend into health care or not?

A statist has difficulty in seeing alternatives to a socialized medicine, while the individualist has difficulty with the individual not being personally responsible for themselves.

Personally, I fear a society where the government becomes the arbiter of doling out limited healthcare resources to people in need of care. No doubt as budgetary constraints force the rationing of healthcare, classes of people will find themselves without healthcare because treatment is not determined to be cost effective. This lack of care is the very thing that socialized medicine is supposed to fix.

I also fear a society, where classes of people are priced out of healthcare because of economic status. A society divided into have and have nots.

Both systems ultimately will lead to the rationing of health care and placing a value on human life. It merely become a question of what device will be used in that rationing.

Thinking in terms of the social contract, we arrive at what are the 2 main questions. First, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the individual to the society? Second, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the society to the individual?

I think it has been said already
"FROM each according to their ABILITY
TO each according to their NEED"

You are part of a nation state you have both rights & responsibilities.

edit

Thinking in terms of the social contract, we arrive at what are the 2 main questions. First, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the individual to the society? Second, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the society to the individual?

Great Point Plato, and I agree that simplifies this debate.

I have to say that as an individual, who is submitting to Govt rule over myself, paying taxes, not commiting crimes, etc, the Govt should in fact be responsible for what I cannot afford or do. The reason being, that if i am doing all that can be done to contribute to society and its progression, the same society should be doing all it can to help me even moreso beyond just healthcare. But I'll stick to this realm for the sake of subject.

Some will probably counter that most aren't doing all they can to "contribute, like work or pay taxes. Well, the lazy factor is out of the window. In this economy things are so arse backwards, there are two classes of unemployed. Those who won't work, and those cannot by way of disability or economic conditions not creating the jobs necessary. I am sure most will agree that there is striking evidence to support that the lazy vs hopeless ratio is now in favor of the hopeless class(Those who only wish they could get a decent job). I have to say that given the state of the economy, we are even being lied to about the true need for reform on this level for healthcare. Republicans overestimate true unemployment at 14 -/+ percent. Wow, that is alot of unemployed people. Now if we took all the truly lazy ones out of that number, we will proly find that they weren't included to begin with. And in fact, that number, is still yet a gross underestimation of the REAL unemployment factor.

Now, lets see. Unemployment, from what I understand(Lord knows i don't understand much) is calculated by new applicants to unemployment benefits, coupled with those receiving current benefits. If this is true, then what about the millions more, who have depleted their allowance of these unemployment benefits. They aren't counted. With this in mind, the number that is official, is underestimated at just about 10%. Republicans, to spite about Obama with talking points, (According to Rush 'The Gush' Limbaugh) underestimate to less of an extreme that true unemployment to be at about 14% -/+.

They are both wrong and politicians on both sides openly admit on media programs that these numbers are in no way reflective of the actual unemployment. They use the figures and formula to guage whats going on. Kinda like alot of simC indexes reflect 'trends' by wieghted charts, rather than real time 'actual numbers' Now I could be wrong about this whole thing.

I am void of actual reasoning as to why this could be a bad idea, except to someones bottom line. But lets face it. Those who have money and pay for health insurance are getting the shitty end of the stick as well. Yet they are so openly against the Govt paying for health care. So, why the 'haves' get taken for what little they have amassed, the poor get given the little they get. With YOUR money. So why not have it free for all. Now you nor the poor person would pay for any healthcare. This would create an environment of what the poor man gets, so shall I(if you aren't the poor man). This should not anger you, it should soften your heart to know that now, many tragedies will be averted in this matter. And if it does shame on you. Your heart is evil and jealous wishing unecessary harm upon your neighbor. Who here, would see a man dying of thirst in a desert while having means of quenching that thirst, and would not give him a drink of water. Don't even answer that, that is between you and you know who.

Wendy, what gives you the right to tell Doug to settle down? He felt passionate in his response just as you did in your initial post and those following. I don't use game forums to state my political or religious views. On such topics you should expect heated and/or passionate responses, and heaven help us all,,,,,it has brought Nix back from the dead...... YIKES!

Kiss try minding your business. I don't care what you think about what my rights are. What gives you the right to question me?

I don't think we need to have a problem here.

Is that heated enuff for you? Moving right along, Next Customer!!

From this side of the pond it looks like the 'christian' vote or the bible belt as I have heard it called carries a certain weight in US elections.
However US health care seems very unchristian.

Source?

If the above is to be used as a source (as it was) - and longevity is to be used as a means to quantify the quality of healthcare rahter than the quality of lifestyle - it is worth noting the number of highly-ranked nations which possess socialised healthcare in comparison to the ones that do not.

Tyr, the American political system is a farce, it isn't real.

"Politics in America today is identical to pro wrestling, and what I mean by that is in front of the cameras and the public we all hate each other... Yet behind the scenes we all are friends, going out to dinner together and It's all a work, it's show bizz and that's what you have today in politics. The Democrats and Republicans aren't really opposed to each other."

Jesse Ventura
Former Minnesota Governor

Look at the false left-right dichotomy generate 70 posts of division and hate in a couple days on an inactive forum. Wow, just wow. No wonder the elites get away with anything. Bread and circuses for all!

As too the debate itself, since the insurance companies back obama and his plan, you can be sure that's not a good sign.

Solomon, do you listen to alex jones' show because it sounds like it. I can tell you are above the banal theatre that is american politics. All folks like us care about is liberty from corrupt bankers and rouge governments, and that liberty has been slipping away ever since the 1913 fed takeover, and before that even.

BTW it's toker420 from chat, I've changed handles and countries.

Alex Jones is a great American.

I don't listen to him or his radio show out of Texas like I should, nevertheless I revere him as a great American.

The Jesse Ventura thing gives me a little hope, he's not NWO and he was able to take Minnesota. That means that they don't have total control (yet) and at the community level we can start to take America back. As he's proven, states are achievable.

As soon as we're officially in the North American Union I will consider Michigan an independent and foreign occupied nation and encourage the same line of thinking in my friends, family and neighbors. Detroit was French, not British. Michigan joined the United States of America, not the New World Order.

America, the land of the free and home of the brave, we wont have one without the other.

just reading back
Ummagumma: "Damn straight I do Inanna. Why should I share my hard earned capitalist (I'm going to work hard for it) dollars with socialists (I'm entitled to it)."

Did you mind them using your hard earned $ to bail out merchant banks & investment houses whose egregious behaviour are probably the cause of the current US financial meltdown? No socialists involved there.
US Government does not quickly wake up to itself, down the track - say 10-15 years the Chinese will be telling us all what to do

Wait, why didn't anyone tell me "Solomon" was
Jesse Ventura!?!?!

Famous People play SC hmmmmmm. . . .

JkJk Solomon. LooooL

Yes I did mind Kali. Sure there were socialism involved. Bush acted like a damn socialist with bailouts. In fact it all started with socialst policies in the first place compounded by capitalist greed.

Sure, I recognize the inherent greed in capitalism but YOU took my quote out of context. I also said a successful society must have along with its free market SOME socialism. Just not the dominating force as is what is happening slowly today.


And may I remind you that the meltdown was mostly started with Freddie and Fannie giving loans to anything with 2 legs ("Aren't I entitled to it?"), as a result of being forced by the ilk of Barney Frank,SEIU,Acorn, etc... facilitated by policies of a "compassionate conservative" in office , not just the "egregious behavior" by banks .

I would have let the meltdown happen. Shake it up, survival of the fittest. Didn't want no damn bailouts.

I pay all my medical expenses out of pocket (except for catatrophic coverage I buy), growing more and more of my own food,have my own businesses, my child goes to private school, have no debts (except for small mortgage).

I am getting sick of this entitlement atmosphere rising in this country, and .... you're right China will own us soon, and socialist policies will only get us there quicker.

When capitalism falls down - as any system does from time to time - the "hardliners" always blame "socialism."

It would be amusing were it not so entirely misguided.

The current meltdown was caused in part by banks giving people mortgages they couldn't afford. Not out of any misguided desire to help them, but with the thought of intrest-incurred profits well and truly in mind; the more they loan, the more money they make. Greed got them into this mess, not any attempt at offering a handout.

And the governments of the world, learning from history and realising that the "survival of the most fit" protectionist attitude of past recessions has been entirely bogus, stepped in and supported the system as best they could in order to minimise the problem.

Its also amazing how many people synonymise "capitalism" with the free market concept.