Split - Politics of space exploration

[idkew]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Ah ... realists?...

i think you have missed a large part of the discussion. i, for one, am not at all against taxes. i am against nationalized healthcare. i believe it is unconstitutional, not to mention a bad idea.

Also- in the question i asked you, i was not asking what you call someone who accepts taxes. i was asking what you term the belief that people hold who want the few to pay for the many, as in nationalized healthcare.

i know there is, and always will be taxing. it is a power given to the government. providing healthcare, in my view, was a power never given to our government. this is why i recommend reading The General Welfare link i gave above. It is a quick one pager read.

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by idkew
i think you have missed a large part of the discussion. i, for one, am not at all against taxes. i am against nationalized healthcare. i believe it is unconstitutional, not to mention a bad idea.

Also- in the question i asked you, i was not asking what you call someone who accepts taxes. i was asking what you term the belief that people hold who want the few to pay for the many, as in nationalized healthcare.

i know there is, and always will be taxing. it is a power given to the government. providing healthcare, in my view, was a power never given to our government. this is why i recommend reading The General Welfare link i gave above. It is a quick one pager read.

Your link is to a libertarian site. As such, they use a strict constructionist view of the constitution to try and find away to cast into doubt the legality of any social program. There are two separate questions here first, the legality of such programs and second, the wisdom of these programs. There are over a half-century of laws and legal precedent, not to mention massive public support for programs that have provided for a safety net for those who cannot provide the basic necessities of life. This is very settled law. I know there are some libertarians and a few on the radical right of the Republican Party who would like to see this happen, but it is crazy.

As to National Health Care, there are many proposals out there for different reforms of the systems. None that I know of advocates that the "few pay for the many." Many advocate taxes on business or progressive tax rates to help pay for a national health care system, but none would propose what you say. I have to say that there are many, including myself, that think that access to health care is a right, not a privilege that should be determined by ones ability to pay. Not only that but it is the best interest of society as a whole that we don't have health care denied to people.

 

[2jaded2care]

Yes, we are officially off-topic.

I'm not a historian, have only a layman's knowledge of history at best. I understand that many consider the National Socialism of WWII Germany to be just fascism in another name, but to me the Nazi propaganda slogan of "common interest over self-interest" does not sound like what most people have in mind when they wish to insult conservatives.

Some large corporations were allowed to continue to operate in Nazi Germany, but they were under the government's control. (So too were the workers, which I guess might serve to refute the National Socialism as real "socialism" argument.) Some industries, like the film industry, were nationalized.

Didn't mean to take us this far off-topic. I was merely trying to point out that the term "communist", depending on the context, does not always constitute an insult IMHO. Comparisons to particular dictators, however, is likely to be taken as such, whether intended or not.

Back on-topic, I do hope that we can make the most of that other Opportunity... Doesn't NASA have another (identical) robot handy, here on earth, that they can try to trouble-shoot with? Why not? Cost?

 

[idkew]

without restating too much, i am against this for many reasons, one being that i do not believe Nat'l HC can sustain itself. We have already seen that SS can not sustain itself after a population boom, what exempts Nat'l HC from this?

another being that i do not feel like waiting a month for non life threatening care. this is commonplace in other nat'l hc places. i feel that if i work hard, i want good hc. i do not want substandard hc. i want the best MY money can buy.

if you also read back a bit, you will learn i am currently jobless, i have no hc. i still am not asking for others to pay my way. amazing huh? maybe it is because i believe in RESPONSIBILITY. i am responsible for my own self, NOT my government. their job is to protect me. not to care for me.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Doesn't NASA have another (identical) robot handy, here on earth, that they can try to trouble-shoot with? Why not? Cost?

yes they do. i read a press release that they have been unable to reproduce the problems on the robot here.... but, we got some good people there, i think we can get spirit back, maybe with some broken parts, but she will come back.

Spirit can be discussed here

 

[2jaded2care]

Thanks for that NASA info, idkew.

Here's another link that you and Frohickey might like...

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1315

The others will gag, as it's another "Libertarian" site (so be forewarned, others!). I haven't decided whether I buy it all, but at least some of the symptoms relating to health care seem right on the money.

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by idkew
without restating too much, i am against this for many reasons, one being that i do not believe Nat'l HC can sustain itself. We have already seen that SS can not sustain itself after a population boom, what exempts Nat'l HC from this?

another being that i do not feel like waiting a month for non life threatening care. this is commonplace in other nat'l hc places. i feel that if i work hard, i want good hc. i do not want substandard hc. i want the best MY money can buy.

if you also read back a bit, you will learn i am currently jobless, i have no hc. i still am not asking for others to pay my way. amazing huh? maybe it is because i believe in RESPONSIBILITY. i am responsible for my own self, NOT my government. their job is to protect me. not to care for me.

I don't want to force you to go over old arguments. I just wanted to throw my two cents in about some serious misunderstanding about history and the use of political terms.

Let me just respond to your last paragraph. I think it is good to take responsibility for your own actions and what you can do. Unless I'm mistaken disease and illness are not always part of that. It is in our best interests that we use our collective resources to prevent such things. It is also in our interest that we have a humane society that looks to help those who cannot do so on their own. I don't for the moment look at that as evading responsibility. Indeed the taxes I pay are part of my responsibility to myself and my fellow citizens. We can have a honest discussion about NHC and what is the best way to deal with the current crisis in our system, but if we start from the place that health care is only the responsibility of those who are sick and infirm, we have no common ground.

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Yes, we are officially off-topic.

I'm not a historian, have only a layman's knowledge of history at best. I understand that many consider the National Socialism of WWII Germany to be just fascism in another name, but to me the Nazi propaganda slogan of "common interest over self-interest" does not sound like what most people have in mind when they wish to insult conservatives.

Some large corporations were allowed to continue to operate in Nazi Germany, but they were under the government's control. (So too were the workers, which I guess might serve to refute the National Socialism as real "socialism" argument.) Some industries, like the film industry, were nationalized.

Didn't mean to take us this far off-topic. I was merely trying to point out that the term "communist", depending on the context, does not always constitute an insult IMHO. Comparisons to particular dictators, however, is likely to be taken as such, whether intended or not.

Back on-topic, I do hope that we can make the most of that other Opportunity... Doesn't NASA have another (identical) robot handy, here on earth, that they can try to trouble-shoot with? Why not? Cost?

I would not agree with your characterization of corporations under Nazi rule. They were active participants in supporting Nazism not just entities that were allowed to continue.

I would agree that the use of the term communist is not always a slur. There are still many that think Marx and Engels' vision can be built. I am not one of them, but I have known many Socialists and Communist throughout my life. Just don't mix up what term you use for who or you will have a fight on your hands.

As to NASA and the Mars lander I heard that they may have found evidence of water under the surface. It would be an amazing discovery if they did. I think they just need to hit the thing a couple of times with a hammer and all will be well. Now, just how to get that hammer up there...?

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by Sayhey
but if we start from the place that health care is only the responsibility of those who are sick and infirm, we have no common ground.

i believe that health care should come from the fruits of your own labor. if you are a billionaire, and (just as magic johnson) can afford extremely advanced care, great, good for you, i envy you. if you are middle class, and you can afford normal care, cool. if you make $15,000 a year and can't afford contacts, wear glasses, tough. if you make $5000 a year and can't afford HC, well, lets set up a system that you still pay into, but your premiums are subsidized by the gov. you go to gov. hc centers, you get gov. drugs... but you don't get it for free. remember, life is not fair.

but ultimately, i want hc that represents how hard i work. when work 80 hours a week to support my family, i want to see the rewards. no one put a gun to my head to study in hs. not one threatened me not to always party in college. i made these decisions, and i want to benefit from them.

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by idkew
i believe that health care should come from the fruits of your own labor. if you are a billionaire, and (just as magic johnson) can afford extremely advanced care, great, good for you, i envy you. if you are middle class, and you can afford normal care, cool. if you make $15,000 a year and can't afford contacts, wear glasses, tough. if you make $5000 a year and can't afford HC, well, lets set up a system that you still pay into, but your premiums are subsidized by the gov. you go to gov. hc centers, you get gov. drugs... but you don't get it for free. remember, life is not fair.

but ultimately, i want hc that represents how hard i work. when work 80 hours a week to support my family, i want to see the rewards. no one put a gun to my head to study in hs. not one threatened me not to always party in college. i made these decisions, and i want to benefit from them.

May I ask where you think medicare comes from? Last I looked 1.45% of my gross wages went into medicare every paycheck. That is the experience of all those who work for a living. Employers pay an additional matching 1.45% as a cost of doing business. Now what do you suppose we should do with those who for whatever reason can't work and pay into the system? Let them die?

 

[2jaded2care]

Come to think of it, this troubled Spirit kind of makes the argument for me that there's no comparison to actually, physically going there in person.

Not that I would wish similar technical problems for humans on Mars... but at least humans might be able to troubleshoot and fix things. At least, they'd have more incentive!

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Now what do you suppose we should do with those who for whatever reason can't work and pay into the system? Let them die?

Ask Frohickey about this.


But, I am very against anything that I pay into, but receive no benefit. I don't necessarily need to get a 1:1 return, but to receive, you must put in. There are very few people in this country who can not perform a task worth something.

Example: My grocery store employs mentally handicapped people to pack groceries. They put their amount in. I have no problem subsidizing their general HC a bit. But they also don't need the newest, colored contact lenses... They don't need free viagra...

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
if you don't believe in wealth redistribution, why do you say that it is close to the truth that the only way to get the rich to give is to force them? sure sounds like you do to me, but please, explain your comment.

Because the rich don't get rich and stay rich by giving their fortunes away voluntarily. In my experience they're quite cheap and stingy.

Most well-to-do folks from well-to-do families I've known would laugh at St. Francis of Asissi because they can't fathom such selflessness.

But it's much more fun to compare me to a crazed communist dictator.

Hypocrite.

 

[idkew]

at least you're worth a smile and a small laugh.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
at least you're worth a smile and a small laugh.

Just like Castro.

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by idkew
Ask Frohickey about this.


But, I am very against anything that I pay into, but receive no benefit. I don't necessarily need to get a 1:1 return, but to receive, you must put in. There are very few people in this country who can not perform a task worth something.

Example: My grocery store employs mentally handicapped people to pack groceries. They put their amount in. I have no problem subsidizing their general HC a bit. But they also don't need the newest, colored contact lenses... They don't need free viagra...

I asked you because I know what Frohickey's response is, I don't know yours. I have no interest in going back to the days of folks dying by the hundreds of thousands from starvation and millions from disease because a few of our citizens don't want to pay the taxes to avert disaster.

The proposed Single Payer system (ala Canada) is really just an extension of the current medicare system. We all pay into it and cut the insurance companies out. Seems like a wonderful idea to me. As to viagra you one day rue that statement.

 

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Sayhey
... Now what do you suppose we should do with those who for whatever reason can't work and pay into the system? Let them die?

This and your point about illness and disease, IMO, are the reason that Libertarians will not win the argument. While we would all hope that charity would take up the slack, there's no guarantee that it would. (Heck, I don't think even gov't can really follow through on a guarantee like that.)

While idkew's preference has historically been the norm, I do not think that our society is willing to allow people to die just because they have exhausted their monetary resources. Especially not since nowadays there are so many viable treatment options (not necessarily cures) available, which were not available in the past.

The problem is, these treatments cost money, and it's not realistic to expect doctors to work for free all the time -- how would they pay off their student loans? How would pharmaceutical companies pay their employees if they couldn't charge for their products? Or can those employees somehow magically work for nothing? (To point out the obvious.)

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I asked you because I know what Frohickey's response is, I don't know yours. I have no intere

i feel i just answered you. let me expand it.

if you can afford great healthcare, great.

if you can afford normal healthcare, ok.

if you can, by no means whatsoever, afford hc, you can be subsidized. and this means you get no cable, no cigarettes, no beer, no titty bar. if you choose hbo over heath, too bad, but i am not paying for your hbo.

the us is not a country of free stuff. you need to work for what you receive. if you can't possibly work, i have no problem helping you, but if you can, get your ass out of the gutter and work. you can survive off a mcdonald's pay. you won't live a life of luxury, but no one said you should. all you need is shelter and food. where does it say in the constitution that you have coming a nice car and a leather couch?

almost anyone can get a loan for college these days. if you want success bad enough, you can find it.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Just like Castro.

can you keep it coming. maybe we can se you in exchange of prozac. "a laugh a day by psudobrit". you could make a living this way.

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by idkew
i feel i just answered you. let me expand it.

if you can afford great healthcare, great.

if you can afford normal healthcare, ok.

if you can, by no means whatsoever, afford hc, you can be subsidized. and this means you get no cable, no cigarettes, no beer, no titty bar. if you choose hbo over heath, too bad, but i am not paying for your hbo.

the us is not a country of free stuff. you need to work for what you receive. if you can't possibly work, i have no problem helping you, but if you can, get your ass out of the gutter and work. you can survive off a mcdonald's pay. you won't live a life of luxury, but no one said you should. all you need is shelter and food. where does it say in the constitution that you have coming a nice car and a leather couch?

almost anyone can get a loan for college these days. if you want success bad enough, you can find it.

We are moving from health care into other areas, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that living on welfare is some kind of great life, full of luxuries. I think you've been listening to too much Libertarian propaganda.

I take it from your response that you are willing to pay taxes for healthcare for those that can't afford it and can't work to contribute to health insurance. Then my question becomes what do you think of the proposal of a Single Payer System?

As to college, well, I can tell you don't live in California.

By the way, I don't disagree that those who can work should work.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
This and your point about illness and disease, IMO, are the reason that Libertarians will not win the argument. While we would all hope that charity would take up the slack, there's no guarantee that it would. (Heck, I don't think even gov't can really follow through on a guarantee like that.)

While idkew's preference has historically been the norm, I do not think that our society is willing to allow people to die just because they have exhausted their monetary resources. Especially not since nowadays there are so many viable treatment options (not necessarily cures) available, which were not available in the past.

The problem is, these treatments cost money, and it's not realistic to expect doctors to work for free all the time -- how would they pay off their student loans? How would pharmaceutical companies pay their employees if they couldn't charge for their products? Or can those employees somehow magically work for nothing? (To point out the obvious.)

you do have good points, but are these destitute people this way ONLY b/c of their illness, or are they taking on unnecessary payments? do they have a cell phone? that is $40 a month. do they have cable? another $40.

my point is that we should determine need by gross income, not by money in the bank. the people should not be responsible for the poor financial moves of the few. Unfortunately, it seems we are forgetting about responsibility again. I can't control your spending.

I can't stop you from buying wants. If your buying of wants makes you not able to afford HC, tough. You get no HC. You need to be responsible for your own moves.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I'm not sure where you get the idea that living on welfare is some kind of great life, full of luxuries.

Of the few people i know on welfare, they are either smokers, or down on their luck and needing a bit of help for a while.

it seems to me that people who spend $5 for 20 cigarettes are not only costing me money now, but would be costing me a heck of a lot when they get cancer (and there is NHC).

 

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by idkew
my point is that we should determine need by gross income, not by money in the bank. the people should not be responsible for the poor financial moves of the few. Unfortunately, it seems we are forgetting about responsibility again. I can't control your spending.

I can't stop you from buying wants. If your buying of wants makes you not able to afford HC, tough. You get no HC. You need to be responsible for your own moves.

"To each according to his needs..."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I would think that most people would cut back on the Verizon if Mr. G. Reaper were staring them in the face. But then again, I don't understand people who smoke, either. Must be an "A" type personality thing...

 

[g5man]

Originally posted by idkew
you do have good points, but are these destitute people this way ONLY b/c of their illness, or are they taking on unnecessary payments? do they have a cell phone? that is $40 a month. do they have cable? another $40.

my point is that we should determine need by gross income, not by money in the bank. the people should not be responsible for the poor financial moves of the few. Unfortunately, it seems we are forgetting about responsibility again. I can't control your spending.

I can't stop you from buying wants. If your buying of wants makes you not able to afford HC, tough. You get no HC. You need to be responsible for your own moves.

Let me add a hearty AMEN BROTHER.

I don't have HC because I choose not to. With the money saved I can buy a new MAC every year.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by idkew
if you also read back a bit, you will learn i am currently jobless, i have no hc. i still am not asking for others to pay my way. amazing huh? maybe it is because i believe in RESPONSIBILITY. i am responsible for my own self, NOT my government. their job is to protect me. not to care for me.

Ah, but if you had a terrible accident right now, and you were taken to the hospital, you know what would happen? They'd sign you up on medicare immediately. If you refused to sign up, they'd stabilize you then send you home, quite possibly to die. Under those circumstances, if you had to choose between accepting other people's tax money to pay for your health care, or choose to die, do you think that you'd honestly hold such a high and mighty position and choose death?

Also, I think that we may have the beginning of a real discussion about this. I don't necessarily advocate giving the government exclusive control over health care. I think that a good basis for a system would be for the government to provide a basic health care system for all of its citizens. Now, that might mean that for non-critical illnesses you might have to wait some time for treatment, if that's all that you had. But, then employers could offer supplimental insurance plans that would provide additional coverage such that the combined coverage would resemble what you would expect to get today.