Correcting rumors about Sarah Palin

[Gorgon]

Socialized medicine, is that like slang for a proper healthcare system

[taks]

it's like slang for "violation of rights" and "doesn't work."

 

you fools all sit back and pat yourselves on the back for being so civilized because you want to help the world. it's easy to ask others to pay for your problems, isn't it? sure, tax the "rich," because it doesn't hurt your bottom line. "they can afford it." basically it comes down to "i want more, and i want somebody else to pay for it because i can't afford it." yet i'm the one who is greedy. hypocrisy.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

If it doesn't work, we just get rid of it and try something else. Like I said, we already had 8 years of Republicans. I think it is the Democrats turn. If they don't improve things for the vast majority of us, we ditch them 4 years from now for someone else. This is a democracy. If we don't like someone in office we vote him or her out and put someone in his or her place that we do like. Given how the world is today compared how it was 8 years ago before the Republicans took power I am willing to give the Democrats a chance. If things turn out worse, then I will vote for someone else 4 years from now. Hell, I would be all for changing parties back and forth Democrats and Republicans every four years. It could lead to some interesting results.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[SteveThaiBinh]

Health care and education should be 'socialised', i.e. provided by the state, because the general health and education of society impacts upon all its members. This has always been the rationale for state funding for these services. I cannot expect a healthy life unless the majority of people I encounter are reasonably healthy too, and don't pass on diseases to me and my family. That means widespread vaccinations and primary health care. My business ventures cannot prosper if the local workforce is chronically ill or illiterate, nor can health care, law or democracy function if people are too uneducated to read about the candidates, or to read the labels on medicine bottles. That means health care and certainly education up to primary level (secondary is less clear, according to the economists who study these things).

[Killian Kalthorne]

Besides we have socialized police and fire departments, for the same reasoning, for the public good, we should have socialize medicine.

[Gorgon]

it's like slang for "violation of rights" and "doesn't work."

 

you fools all sit back and pat yourselves on the back for being so civilized because you want to help the world. it's easy to ask others to pay for your problems, isn't it? sure, tax the "rich," because it doesn't hurt your bottom line. "they can afford it." basically it comes down to "i want more, and i want somebody else to pay for it because i can't afford it." yet i'm the one who is greedy. hypocrisy.

 

taks

Half my bloody income goes back in the system. I pay for it. So the higher incomes pay more, should I demand they take 60% out of my check instead.

 

Not that I'm an angel of mercy or anything, it just seems pretty obvious that you have to make sure certain basic functions of society are run properly, if you give two ****s about the place you live in that is.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Gorgon

[taks]

Half my bloody income goes back in the system. I pay for it. So the higher incomes pay more, should I demand they take 60% out of my check instead.

no, you should demand that you get to pay for your own health care. i do, and i guarantee my health care is better than yours (as well as more prompt). oh, i pay $131/month for my son and i, not half my damned pay check. i guarantee my health care is, ultimately, cheaper than yours due to efficiency.

 

Not that I'm an angel of mercy or anything, it just seems pretty obvious that you have to make sure certain basic functions of society are run properly, if you give two ****s about the place you live in that is.

ours actually runs correctly, or at least would if the government would get out of it and the rest of the world would stop leaching off of us (sorry, but there's no way for us to be the only semi-capitalist model without the rest of the world drawing a benefit from that). i give more than two ****s. things would be much, much better if everyone woke up and realized that socialized anything just doesn't work. the choices offered by a free market are what fuels competition which ultimately improves quality, not government control. history proves me right, yet all you "socialism is kewl" euros just ignore that...

 

taks

[taks]

Besides we have socialized police and fire departments, for the same reasoning, for the public good, we should have socialize medicine.

did you not read what i posted? these services are not socialized! neither are these services paid for with federal funds. are you capable of arguing a point without a straw man? community fire and police protection are not even close to the same as socialized medicine, you can get health care on your own, you cannot get police or fire protection on your own. period. that's why the former need to be funded by government, but the latter does not.

 

wake up.

 

Given how the world is today compared how it was 8 years ago before the Republicans took power I am willing to give the Democrats a chance.

again i ask, how are things worse other than the war in iraq? you seem so confident yet you cannot put a finger on what's worse. you also cannot identify why republicans are to blame (even failing to recognize that democrats have been in charge of congress for 2 years now). 8 years ago we were spiralling downward into a terrible recession caused by the bursting of the tech bubble. that's over. in general, the economy is much better now than before, and our taxes are lower.

 

Health care and education should be 'socialised', i.e. provided by the state, because the general health and education of society impacts upon all its members. This has always been the rationale for state funding for these services.

yeah, that's the rationale, but it simply doesn't work. the general health and education of society would actually improve if both of these were completely privatized. pro-socialism advocates put on blinders to the facts. this is hardly a surprise since the ultimate goal of socialism is not a better society, but one that is controlled.

 

i'm curious, do you people only pay lip service to rights? does anyone understand what inalienable means?

 

taks

 

*note, too, that education is another thing that is provided for primarily with local sales taxes in the US, not that it matters to the overall point.

Edited September 9, 2008 by taks

[Laozi]

(well, abolishing unconstitutional/socialist taxes on income would solve that problem)

 

taks

 

 

 

So you favor a flat tax?

[themadhatter114]

Madhatter, Sarah Palin has stated that she will adhere to strict Republican doctrine and Republican doctrine is against gay marriage and civil unions. A good chunk of Republicans want to make this into a Constitutional amendment even. Pretty much they want not give Homosexuals equal rights under the law. Marriage should be defined as two individuals who love and cherish each other to the point they are committed to each other in both a spiritual and physical bond. Again, with the 19th and 20th century thinking, Republicans are 100% against this completely, so much so they are against civil unions.

 

Democrats are only a little better. There are some who don't want gay marriage but wish to pursue civil unions for homosexual couples. That is the stance of Barack Obama. Not optimal because it looks like it is following the "equal, but different" philosophy that segregationists used. Now if they made all marriages act as civil unions under the law, the term "marriage" would be meaningless in a legal and governmental terms while keeping its religious significance to those who find religious traditions important.

 

She has said she will be following Republican doctrine and that is enough for me not to vote for her. We have given the Republicans 8 years to make the United States a better place and they have failed.

 

Amusingly, a New York Times poll found that 49% of Republican delegates at the convention supported either gay marriage or civil unions. But I don't see anywhere that Palin has stated anything about gay marriage. The only reference to it I've seen is in her gubernatorial debate when she made reference to the 1998 Alaskan Constitutional amendment defining marriage.

 

Marriage should not be defined as "two individuals who love and cherish each other to the point they are committed to each other in both a spiritual and physical bond." That's just silly. The church should define marriage however they want, and the government shouldn't define marriage at all. Gay couples should have no more privilege than cohabiting siblings or best friends. Nor should married couples.

[SteveThaiBinh]

There is no convincing evidence that the private sector can run universal health care or primary education better than the state. If there were, that would be an argument for going down that route. It would not, however, alter the morality of the issue. In the absence of a superior private alternative, the state can and should offer universal healthcare and primary education.

 

Normally in the UK, the charge of talking exclusively about rights and never about responsibilities is one levelled by the right against the left, but perhaps that would not be the case in the US?

[themadhatter114]

it's called rationalization, actually. his mind was made up a looong time ago that he wanted a democrat in office, and now he needs to find valid excuses for every aspect of the overall mccain vs. obama debate. some are valid (from his perspective) and some need rationalization.

 

taks

 

After 8 years of Bush and Republican leadership, and seeing where it brought us, why would I even want another 4 years of a Republican White House?

 

Also I don't get why you are so against socialized medicine. It works quite well in Canada and the U.K.. Are you against other socialized emergency services such as police and fire departments? Imagine that you had to "pay" a police officer to investigate a break in to your home or to investigate an an assault charge. Imagine if you had to pay the fire department yourself to put out a fire at your home. Imagine the need to make a payment for a 911 call. Only major credit cards accepted!

 

Or, or, imagine this. Perhaps you could get yourself a gun and protect yourself and tell the police to go to hell since protecting you is NOT their job.

 

As for fire departments, localities could institute a 'fire tax' to maintain a fire department. Or they could have a volunteer fire department, which is what just about every small town has. The same could be done with police, or you could hire a private investigator, or, as I said, you could buy a gun and leave the cops out of the equation.

[taks]

So you favor a flat tax?

no, income tax in general is discriminatory. sales tax is the answer. yes, it would be high (probably 20%), but you exempt necessities such as food (not prepared food, nor luxuries such as alcohol) so that the poor don't get screwed (since a larger portion of their income goes towards necessities than it does for more affluent people). this way, everyone pays their share for the things that must be provided by government, but it is based on consumption, not income. no more IRS, at least not anything like what we have now, no cheating on taxes (it is added automatically, consumers cannot avoid it), and no tax criminals. you could probably even go one higher and increase the tax on fully luxury items. if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the thing.

 

taks

[themadhatter114]

My main reasoning for being against government-funded health care is that, once the government has a vested interest in your health, they then assume the power to legislate your health. I'm just so excited to see all the Nazi tactics they use to combat the "obesity epidemic."

 

It will be so awesome if we have socialized medicine and then the Center for Science in the Public Interest gets taken seriously!

[taks]

There is no convincing evidence that the private sector can run universal health care or primary education better than the state.

excuse me? the private sector is already running health care in the US (mostly), and it's better here than anywhere else. public education sucks, which is why charter schools are becoming so popular (and private schools already perform the same or better for less overall cost than public schools). private anything (mostly) is simply more efficient, providing the same or better solution for less cost. it's not just convincing evidence, it is overwhelming.

 

It would not, however, alter the morality of the issue. In the absence of a superior private alternative, the state can and should offer universal healthcare and primary education.

what, you're saying it is moral to take from those that have and give to those that don't? violating one person's rights to favor another's? where do you get your morals from?

 

Normally in the UK, the charge of talking exclusively about rights and never about responsibilities is one levelled by the right against the left, but perhaps that would not be the case in the US?

rights are not rights if they favor one person over another. my only "responsibility" is to not infringe upon the rights of another. that is the only "moral" position, as any other creates exceptions that give more rights to the many while sacrificing the rights of the few. "there's more of us so we're in the right!"

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Or, or, imagine this. Perhaps you could get yourself a gun and protect yourself and tell the police to go to hell since protecting you is NOT their job.

 

As for fire departments, localities could institute a 'fire tax' to maintain a fire department. Or they could have a volunteer fire department, which is what just about every small town has. The same could be done with police, or you could hire a private investigator, or, as I said, you could buy a gun and leave the cops out of the equation.

 

Let me think about this for a moment, NO! Are you insane? I am against gun control, but having every person with a gun, and with there being more than a few trigger happy people out there, That would be an immensely STUPID idea. Frankly that is the stupidest idea I have read so far here. The police is there to keep the peace, to arrest criminals, and to maintain order. If we remove the police and let everyone have a gun and "police" themselves we would have total and complete anarchy.

 

Also, depending on "volunteers" is also stupid. Not everyone volunteers for that sort of dangerous work and personally I rather have someone who is trained to do the job right, earning a good paycheck doing it, than have some off the street yokel who has no idea which end to hold the nozzle at.

 

Public services provided by police, firemen, and medical personnel, should be on call for those in need, regardless of need, and free to the public. One's basic security and well being should not be based on income.

[themadhatter114]

Or, or, imagine this. Perhaps you could get yourself a gun and protect yourself and tell the police to go to hell since protecting you is NOT their job.

 

As for fire departments, localities could institute a 'fire tax' to maintain a fire department. Or they could have a volunteer fire department, which is what just about every small town has. The same could be done with police, or you could hire a private investigator, or, as I said, you could buy a gun and leave the cops out of the equation.

 

Let me think about this for a moment, NO! Are you insane? I am against gun control, but having every person with a gun, and with there being more than a few trigger happy people out there, That would be an immensely STUPID idea. Frankly that is the stupidest idea I have read so far here. The police is there to keep the peace, to arrest criminals, and to maintain order. If we remove the police and let everyone have a gun and "police" themselves we would have total and complete anarchy.

 

Yeah, towns should probably be able to pass local taxes to support a police force. But everyone should have their own guns and be ready to defend themselves, especially against the police when the time comes.

 

Also, depending on "volunteers" is also stupid. Not everyone volunteers for that sort of dangerous work and personally I rather have someone who is trained to do the job right, earning a good paycheck doing it, than have some off the street yokel who has no idea which end to hold the nozzle at.

 

Are you stupid? Do you know how many towns in this country have a volunteer fire department? In my home county there are 3 volunteer fire departments, and they all have fundraisers to buy equipment and for training, and they all do an excellent job. But, yes, in a city, it's important to have full-time fire department paid for by city funds.

 

Public services provided by police, firemen, and medical personnel, should be on call for those in need, regardless of need, and free to the public. One's basic security and well being should not be based on income.

 

I don't want the government to have any more interest in legislating my consumption habits than they already do.

[Hurlshort]

Yikes, anger.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Hurlshot

[tripleRRR]

Yikes, anger.

 

 

Yeah, the rhetoric should probably be toned down a bit before this thread gets pruned. But so far this is a very interesting and insightful discussion, I would hate to see it closed.

[Gorth]

Yikes, anger.

 

 

Yeah, the rhetoric should probably be toned down a bit before this thread gets pruned.

I hope a couple of guys here see reason and come to the same conclusion... otherwise this volunteer "fireman" has to do work again

[Rosbjerg]

There is no convincing evidence that the private sector can run universal health care or primary education better than the state.

 

excuse me? the private sector is already running health care in the US (mostly), and it's better here than anywhere else. public education sucks, which is why charter schools are becoming so popular (and private schools already perform the same or better for less overall cost than public schools). private anything (mostly) is simply more efficient, providing the same or better solution for less cost. it's not just convincing evidence, it is overwhelming.

 

It would not, however, alter the morality of the issue. In the absence of a superior private alternative, the state can and should offer universal healthcare and primary education.

 

what, you're saying it is moral to take from those that have and give to those that don't? violating one person's rights to favor another's? where do you get your morals from?

 

Normally in the UK, the charge of talking exclusively about rights and never about responsibilities is one levelled by the right against the left, but perhaps that would not be the case in the US?

 

rights are not rights if they favor one person over another. my only "responsibility" is to not infringe upon the rights of another. that is the only "moral" position, as any other creates exceptions that give more rights to the many while sacrificing the rights of the few. "there's more of us so we're in the right!"

 

taks

 

I think Northern Europe is a good example of public healthcare and school systems working very well. We have tried privatizing certain areas, like waste disposal and public cleaning, to great effect. So I definitely see the benefits - but to me it's infititely more humane to have free healthcare - so even the mentally ill (who can't keep a job), homeless, poor one parent families (who are struggling as it is without insurance) and everyone else can go to a good doctor in a good hospital and get fixed, no matter what their income is.

 

And I'm proud to pay my 41% taxes to help out these people.

 

Our biggest problem right now is not quality, but waiting lists - to that effect the few private hospitals in Denmark are taking in patients, while the public health insurance still covers it. I'm very much against making the entire sector private, but a few private hospitals can work to increase the overall quality and serve as an alternative to those who would rather pay for better service.

 

So to me, a combination of both private and public, with an emphasis on public, is the best solution imo.

[Gorgon]

Well northern Europe is comparatively rich compared to the amount of people our health care has to service. It's not a universally exportable system, it's a lot easier to be an ideal state when you are the size of Sweden or Denmark.

 

I don't understand how people can just ignore the big picture though, how the health and welfare of everyone corresponds to having a nicer, safer place to live, where the difference between rich and poor is not as extreme as other places. It's easy to just dismiss this as communism, especially if you haven't seen it first hand.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Gorgon

[Rosbjerg]

Well northern Europe is comparatively rich compared to the amount of people our health care has to service. It's not a universally exportable system, it's a lot easier to be an ideal state when you are the size of Sweden or Denmark.

 

I know you can't carbon copy our system and just implement it into the American infrastructure. But I think they could easily have a good public health care system, that works in tandem with their well developed private sector..

[Nick_i_am]

Things would be much, much better if everyone woke up and realized that socialized anything just doesn't work. the choices offered by a free market are what fuels competition which ultimately improves quality, not government control. history proves me right, yet all you "socialism is kewl" euros just ignore that...

 

My god, he's right, and British Rail proves it!

 

Wait, no it doesn't. Ooops

 

That's just the trains though, not something important like, say, education I mean, nowhere with fully public schools has ever ended up with results that should embarrass both America AND the first world in gener....oh, wait, hi Finland (and yes yes, you too Ikealand).

 

You're right though, a 99% literacy rate is proof that it just doesn't work, history agrees man, history agrees.

 

Isn't it nice when people use the vast expanses of 'history' as some kind of quantifier to their own agenda. I'd be expecting you to slam people for doing the same, not doing it yourself because while the base point about competition is correct, but you're just coming off as bitter and ignorant.

[random n00b]

That's just the trains though, not something important like, say, education I mean, nowhere with fully public schools has ever ended up with results that should embarrass both America AND the first world in gener....oh, wait, hi Finland (and yes yes, you too Ikealand).

 

You're right though, a 99% literacy rate is proof that it just doesn't work, history agrees man, history agrees.

From what I know, the demographics in the Nordic countries are different from those of the US, UK, and southern and eastern Europe. Immigration for instance is a non-issue there. Perhaps the relation between that and the success of their model isn't simply casual.

 

I don't think their level of success could be duplicated anywhere else, so they are probably something of an oddity. Which is why they are the one and only example brought up when defending the effectiveness of socialism...

 

 

Isn't it nice when people use the vast expanses of 'history' as some kind of quantifier to their own agenda. I'd be expecting you to slam people for doing the same, not doing it yourself because while the base point about competition is correct, but you're just coming off as bitter and ignorant.

And that's why generalizing is so fun.