Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Please, Liberals Only

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 10:37:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I will buy a pony for any liberal who can answer this to my satisfaction-- even if I disagree:

We can't afford the current size of government and all it's expenses, including military. Cutting military and republican-backed spending will not get us close to paying for our exisiting entitlements (ss, medicaid, etc.). Why are we adding more entitlements we cannot pay for? What is the purpose of this? And what does the purpose matter if the country continues on it's path to bankruptcy as a result?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 10:39:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 10:37:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I will buy a pony for any liberal who can answer this to my satisfaction-- even if I disagree:

We can't afford the current size of government and all it's expenses, including military. Cutting military and republican-backed spending will not get us close to paying for our exisiting entitlements (ss, medicaid, etc.). Why are we adding more entitlements we cannot pay for? What is the purpose of this? And what does the purpose matter if the country continues on it's path to bankruptcy as a result?

Cause we're gonna sell China a few states! :D
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 6:29:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 10:37:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I will buy a pony for any liberal who can answer this to my satisfaction-- even if I disagree:

What is to your satisfaction, and I'm not liberal, I'm independent.

We can't afford the current size of government and all it's expenses, including military. Cutting military and republican-backed spending will not get us close to paying for our exisiting entitlements (ss, medicaid, etc.). Why are we adding more entitlements we cannot pay for? What is the purpose of this? And what does the purpose matter if the country continues on it's path to bankruptcy as a result?

These variables have been known for many years.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 6:30:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 10:39:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/23/2010 10:37:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I will buy a pony for any liberal who can answer this to my satisfaction-- even if I disagree:

We can't afford the current size of government and all it's expenses, including military. Cutting military and republican-backed spending will not get us close to paying for our exisiting entitlements (ss, medicaid, etc.). Why are we adding more entitlements we cannot pay for? What is the purpose of this? And what does the purpose matter if the country continues on it's path to bankruptcy as a result?

Cause we're gonna sell China a few states! :D

Exactly. The people in government who know the facts know that they sold the country out in order to open the markets up.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 7:21:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 10:39:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Cause we're gonna sell China a few states! :D

I'm a libertarian and am against all entitlement programs.

That being said Lol @ debt freakout.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 7:49:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm a libertarian
No, you're a small government conservative. Libertarianism has stricter requirements.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:04:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 7:49:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm a libertarian
No, you're a small government conservative. Libertarianism has stricter requirements.

Lol who died and made you spokesperson for the Libertarian party? There are plenty of internal disagreements within the party, so I don't think you get to decide what the Libertarian party is and isn't lol it's not a philosophy...
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:31:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 8:04:01 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 3/24/2010 7:49:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm a libertarian
No, you're a small government conservative. Libertarianism has stricter requirements.

Lol who died and made you spokesperson for the Libertarian party? There are plenty of internal disagreements within the party, so I don't think you get to decide what the Libertarian party is and isn't lol it's not a philosophy...

First, he said small "l", i.e., not party (I only capitalized it because it was at the beginning of a sentence). That refers to the philosophy.

Second, to join the libertarian party you have to agree to this: "To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." https://www.lp.org...

He does not qualify. So even if we were talking about the Party, it would be dishonest of him to join.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:32:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And yeah, I screwed up the capitalization there, you get the idea ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:37:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 7:49:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm a libertarian
No, you're a small government conservative. Libertarianism has stricter requirements.

http://i40.tinypic.com...

Close enough for me
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:41:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Mostly because the political compass doesn't ask about subsidizing positive externalities by means of taxes ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:49:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
We can't afford the current size of government and all it's expenses, including military. Cutting military and republican-backed spending will not get us close to paying for our exisiting entitlements (ss, medicaid, etc.). Why are we adding more entitlements we cannot pay for? What is the purpose of this? And what does the purpose matter if the country continues on it's path to bankruptcy as a result?

These variables have been known for many years.

I didnt' say any of this was news. That being said, do all just want to keep their heads in the sand and "hope" (as Obama does) that some magical winfall will fix everything some day? Are liberals really only concerned with their own generation?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:54:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
America is the richest country on earth, other countries... even ones who fall into the category of developing nations are able to afford health care for their citizens. It is demonstrably affordable, there exists a strong moral case to do so, not to mention that some form of universal healthcare is to the benefit of society as a whole.

You have the money, it is the right thing to do, it is a pragmatic thing to do.

To take this argument to the next level the onus is on you to demonstrate one or more of the following,
1: How will such schemes bankrupt the country.
2: How it is for the greater good that people can not access health care.
3: That the private sector is better at providing universal health care.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 8:57:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
PS: I fail at being a libertarian because I like the idea that I might have clean drinking water and that rape will be against the law, but I favour personal liberty, small government and a basically free market with a sprinkling of social programs. So I guess I am a liberal.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 9:23:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 8:54:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
America is the richest country on earth,

How do you think we got that way?

other countries... even ones who fall into the category of developing nations are able to afford health care for their citizens.

Of course we're able to implement socialistic policies throughout our society, the point is that they're not economically beneficial in the slightest. A concept "other countries" have failed at understanding. Thus why their GDP is dwarfed by the US's.

It is demonstrably affordable, there exists a strong moral case to do so
Incorrect. Socialism is not moral and its affordability has no effect on its moral value.

Socialistic concepts have been proven to be economically destructive. Thus implementing them and encouraging the implementation of them is evil.

not to mention that some form of universal healthcare is to the benefit of society as a whole.

See: Soviet Union

You have the money, it is the right thing to do, it is a pragmatic thing to do.
It is neither.

To take this argument to the next level the onus is on you to demonstrate one or more of the following,
1: How will such schemes bankrupt the country.
See: Incorrect distribution of resources AKA crowding of private investment through government spending and the negative results.
2: How it is for the greater good that people can not access health care.
Everyone can access healthcare. We're not banning people from buying it. That's why its the free market. We give people the choice to buy healthcare vs. allocate their capital differently. Currently they choose to do otherwise. Advocates of "Universal Healthcare" not only want us to fund healthcare for people living on other planets in our universe but also for other people currently not living in our universe. Furthermore you're forcing us to buy it vs giving us the choice to buy it. Which is more correct?
3: That the private sector is better at providing universal health care.
Clearly the private sector is more efficient at providing anything better than the public sector. It's economic law.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 9:35:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 9:23:37 AM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
Of course we're able to implement socialistic policies throughout our society, the point is that they're not economically beneficial in the slightest. A concept "other countries" have failed at understanding. Thus why their GDP is dwarfed by the US's.

Our GDP Dwarfs most other nations because we are so much larger and thus have a larger market. Per Capita GDP would probably be a better measure of the point you are trying to make, but we don't dwarf everyone on that measure...
What about the nations whose Per Capita GDP are larger than ours, yet they still have social programs?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 9:35:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 6:29:50 AM, kelly224 wrote:
At 3/23/2010 10:37:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I will buy a pony for any liberal who can answer this to my satisfaction-- even if I disagree:


What is to your satisfaction, and I'm not liberal, I'm independent.

"Liberal" is not a party. You can be a Liberal and still be Independent.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 9:54:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 9:35:25 AM, JBlake wrote:
Our GDP Dwarfs most other nations because we are so much larger and thus have a larger market.

Per Capita GDP would probably be a better measure of the point you are trying to make, but we don't dwarf everyone on that measure...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Actually we do.
What about the nations whose Per Capita GDP are larger than ours, yet they still have social programs?

There are only 5 countries and I have one word: Oil
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:15:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obviously I like playing devil's advocate on this issue to piss people off. I think it's hysterical lol.

At 3/24/2010 9:23:37 AM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
At 3/24/2010 8:54:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
America is the richest country on earth,

How do you think we got that way?

Exploiting other nations; the Industrial Revolution; WWII; Stock and bond industry; Automotive technology and production; Oil; etc...

Of course we're able to implement socialistic policies throughout our society, the point is that they're not economically beneficial in the slightest. A concept "other countries" have failed at understanding. Thus why their GDP is dwarfed by the US's.

Other countries... like our beloved Israel? The UK? Both of which have socialized medicine, as I'm sure you know, and continue to be successful.

It is demonstrably affordable, there exists a strong moral case to do so
Incorrect. Socialism is not moral and its affordability has no effect on its moral value.

Right, something's cost does not determine its moral value. Not everyone agrees that universal health care is immoral even if they disagree with socialism as a whole.

Socialistic concepts have been proven to be economically destructive. Thus implementing them and encouraging the implementation of them is evil.

This isn't always true. I'm against natl. health care, but other countries have socialized medicine and their systems have been effective at helping people and not bankrupting them. Luxembourg is the richest country in the world and has a variation of socialized medicine (everyone is entitled to health care).

not to mention that some form of universal healthcare is to the benefit of society as a whole.

See: Soviet Union

Lol, this is a fallacy if I ever saw one.

1: How will such schemes bankrupt the country.
See: Incorrect distribution of resources AKA crowding of private investment through government spending and the negative results.

Again, if other countries can have this system and not go bankrupt because of it, why should people believe that we're the exception?

2: How it is for the greater good that people can not access health care.
Everyone can access healthcare. We're not banning people from buying it. That's why its the free market. We give people the choice to buy healthcare vs. allocate their capital differently. Currently they choose to do otherwise. Advocates of "Universal Healthcare" not only want us to fund healthcare for people living on other planets in our universe but also for other people currently not living in our universe. Furthermore you're forcing us to buy it vs giving us the choice to buy it. Which is more correct?

First off, not everyone can access health care. Not everyone can afford health care (and spare me the 'welfare queen' shpeel which has proven time and again to be inaccurate about most poor people). Some work and simply don't have the capital to invest in health care, so saying they choose to do otherwise is based on your assumption and isn't backed up by any proof whatsoever. Second, insurance companies screw people over all the time. Ergo, even if they buy insurance, these companies work specifically to avoid helping their clients. Most people don't get screwed over by this until it's too late (before you say "Then why doesn't everyone find new coverage?!"). Third, your exaggeration is humorous, I guess. Obviously the U.S. doesn't expect us to cover anyone aside from Americans. And finally, because hospitals HAVE to treat everyone with emergencies, then I'd say it makes sense to tax people for care instead of treating them and potentially never seeing a dime from them.

3: That the private sector is better at providing universal health care.

If that were true, then howcome like 40 other nations have a better health care system then we do? Many of which do not have health care in the private sector...

Besides, is the private sector being eliminated?
President of DDO
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:30:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 8:54:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
America is the richest country on earth, other countries... even ones who fall into the category of developing nations are able to afford health care for their citizens. It is demonstrably affordable, there exists a strong moral case to do so, not to mention that some form of universal healthcare is to the benefit of society as a whole.

You have the money, it is the right thing to do, it is a pragmatic thing to do.

To take this argument to the next level the onus is on you to demonstrate one or more of the following,
1: How will such schemes bankrupt the country.
2: How it is for the greater good that people can not access health care.
3: That the private sector is better at providing universal health care.

well stated. The people that are vehemently opposing it are showing how threatened they are when the playing field is leveled out.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:32:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 8:49:31 AM, HandsOff wrote:
We can't afford the current size of government and all it's expenses, including military. Cutting military and republican-backed spending will not get us close to paying for our exisiting entitlements (ss, medicaid, etc.). Why are we adding more entitlements we cannot pay for? What is the purpose of this? And what does the purpose matter if the country continues on it's path to bankruptcy as a result?

These variables have been known for many years.

I didnt' say any of this was news. That being said, do all just want to keep their heads in the sand and "hope" (as Obama does) that some magical winfall will fix everything some day? Are liberals really only concerned with their own generation?

How about being concerned with the survival of humanity? This is not a political question, this is a question of morality. ALot of people who are brought up with their whole life in books can't understand what it is to FEEL. Everything in life cannot be intellectualized.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:33:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 8:49:31 AM, HandsOff wrote:
We can't afford the current size of government and all it's expenses, including military. Cutting military and republican-backed spending will not get us close to paying for our exisiting entitlements (ss, medicaid, etc.). Why are we adding more entitlements we cannot pay for? What is the purpose of this? And what does the purpose matter if the country continues on it's path to bankruptcy as a result?

These variables have been known for many years.

I didnt' say any of this was news. That being said, do all just want to keep their heads in the sand and "hope" (as Obama does) that some magical winfall will fix everything some day? Are liberals really only concerned with their own generation?

How about being concerned with the survival of humanity? This is not a political question, this is a question of morality. ALot of people who are brought up with their whole life in books can't understand what it is to FEEL. Everything in life cannot be intellectualized. Can we get to a consensus that what sufficed generation ago don't exist now?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:40:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 6:29:50 AM, kelly224 wrote:
At 3/23/2010 10:37:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I will buy a pony for any liberal who can answer this to my satisfaction-- even if I disagree:


What is to your satisfaction, and I'm not liberal, I'm independent.

An independent socialist.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:41:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Everything in life cannot be intellectualized.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:50:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 10:15:02 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 3/24/2010 9:23:37 AM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
At 3/24/2010 8:54:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
America is the richest country on earth,

How do you think we got that way?

Capitalism

Glad you agree.

Of course we're able to implement socialistic policies throughout our society, the point is that they're not economically beneficial in the slightest. A concept "other countries" have failed at understanding. Thus why their GDP is dwarfed by the US's.

Other countries... like our beloved Israel? The UK? Both of which have socialized medicine, as I'm sure you know, and continue to be successful.

Lol not according to the GDP per capita chart.

Also they have to essentially be our bi tch

It is demonstrably affordable, there exists a strong moral case to do so
Incorrect. Socialism is not moral and its affordability has no effect on its moral value.

Right, something's cost does not determine its moral value. Not everyone agrees that universal health care is immoral even if they disagree with socialism as a whole.

There's a difference between socialistic policy and redistribution of wealth. You're in favor of the policy because of the redistribution of wealth which can achieved by a more progressive tax scale, not by implementing socialistic policies on 1/6 of the economy.

Socialistic concepts have been proven to be economically destructive. Thus implementing them and encouraging the implementation of them is evil.

This isn't always true. I'm against natl. health care, but other countries have socialized medicine and their systems have been effective at helping people and not bankrupting them. Luxembourg is the richest country in the world and has a variation of socialized medicine (everyone is entitled to health care).

LOL well Luxembourg also is where the wealthy in the EU hide their money from the EU's taxes so of course they're rich.

During the past few decades there has been a relative decline in the steel sector, offset by Luxembourg's emergence as a major financial services center. The overall services sector in 2005 comprised 83.3% of Luxembourg's GDP with it employing, in terms of percentage of workers, 78% of the labor force. The financial sector in 2005 continued to grow and made up 11% of Luxembourg's total labor force making it identical in size to the industrial labor force. In 2006 there were 156 banks in Luxembourg employing 24,752 people. Political stability, good communications, easy access to other European financial centers, skilled multilingual staff, and a tradition of banking secrecy have contributed to the growth of the financial sector. German banks represent the largest number, with Italian, French, Swiss, Belgian, American, and Japanese banks also heavily represented. Total banking assets in 2005 were $1 trillion. The funds industry is the second largest in the world after the U.S. with $2.158 trillion in domiciled funds.

not to mention that some form of universal healthcare is to the benefit of society as a whole.

See: Soviet Union

Lol, this is a fallacy if I ever saw one.

1: How will such schemes bankrupt the country.
See: Incorrect distribution of resources AKA crowding of private investment through government spending and the negative results.

Again, if other countries can have this system and not go bankrupt because of it, why should people believe that we're the exception?

2: How it is for the greater good that people can not access health care.
Everyone can access healthcare. We're not banning people from buying it. That's why its the free market. We give people the choice to buy healthcare vs. allocate their capital differently. Currently they choose to do otherwise. Advocates of "Universal Healthcare" not only want us to fund healthcare for people living on other planets in our universe but also for other people currently not living in our universe. Furthermore you're forcing us to buy it vs giving us the choice to buy it. Which is more correct?

First off, not everyone can access health care. Not everyone can afford health care (and spare me the 'welfare queen' shpeel which has proven time and again to be inaccurate about most poor people). Some work and simply don't have the capital to invest in health care, so saying they choose to do otherwise is based on your assumption and isn't backed up by any proof whatsoever.

Lol that's full of fail. Anyone who wants to buy it can. It doesn't matter if they "can't afford it". That's not a reason to have government to take over healthcare, that's a reason to have a more progressive tax system. Furthermore everyone currently can afford it, hey just choose to be unable to. Give me someone who can't afford it and I guarantee you they have cable, internet, credit card debt with high interest rates, a car, etc.

I'd love to be proven otherwise.

Second, insurance companies screw people over all the time. Ergo, even if they buy insurance, these companies work specifically to avoid helping their clients.

Obviously, its a business.

Most people don't get screwed over by this until it's too late (before you say "Then why doesn't everyone find new coverage?!").

It's their fault for not understanding what they're buying. Insurance is a contract. If you buy it, know what you are insured for and how much. It's called basic responsibility. It's like buying a car then not having the smarts to read the contract that its sold AS IS then crying to the government because it broke down 5 days later.

Third, your exaggeration is humorous, I guess. Obviously the U.S. doesn't expect us to cover anyone aside from Americans.

It was humorous.

And finally, because hospitals HAVE to treat everyone with emergencies, then I'd say it makes sense to tax people for care instead of treating them and potentially never seeing a dime from them.

So you have the government tax them vs the hospital redistributing prices to make up for the loss?

How does that make sense?

3: That the private sector is better at providing universal health care.

If that were true, then howcome like 40 other nations have a better health care system then we do? Many of which do not have health care in the private sector...

Define "better"

Besides, is the private sector being eliminated?

In this case the sector where people would originally be spending their money but now are being forced to increase the insurance industry due to taxation In other words wherever people would spend their last dollar (what was least important but still was spent). And in this case the insurance division of the private sector is forcefully being increased meaning that people now are being forced to buy it.

Which is simply an inefficient allocation of resources.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:54:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 10:41:10 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Everything in life cannot be intellectualized.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Exactly why I said that, because those who rely soely on their intellect lack emotional maturity, regardless of their age.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:55:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 10:40:20 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/24/2010 6:29:50 AM, kelly224 wrote:
At 3/23/2010 10:37:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
I will buy a pony for any liberal who can answer this to my satisfaction-- even if I disagree:


What is to your satisfaction, and I'm not liberal, I'm independent.

An independent socialist.

Call me what you want. I am a person who "cares".
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 10:57:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 10:41:10 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Everything in life cannot be intellectualized.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

thus this is why those that are stuck in a intellectualing min set have some of the worst lives. Largest drug problems, and the likes.