 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 06:15 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I'm curious...why do you say that's the "primary purpose"? In the Constitution, "provide for the common defense" comes fourth. Would the first thing mentioned, "form a more perfect union" be the primary purpose?
That "more perfect union" was the transition between disconnected colonies and the formation of states. That was long ago attained.
Further, isn't that pretty much the same thing as improving society?
A "more perfect union"? No. Not unless you are misinterpreting it.
True enough. And, while certain states do what they can to provide health care to their citizens (we have a pretty good program for that here in Massachusetts, in fact), but since most states do not, or cannot, it's felt that the federal government needed to step in.
Why don't the Americans who want free health care simply move to Massachusetts for it? California long ago decided to set up a very generous welfare system, and there are a lot of Americans who flock to California to take advantage of that.
I think this makes for a good set up. If California is more generous than it is fiscally responsible, then it goes bankrupt. Nevada, Arizona and Oregon might look at the California model and say "We'd better be a little more responsible", and they don't go bankrupt. And all the while, Americans have the freedom to relocate from liberal systems to conservative systems, and vice versa.
But this proposed universal health care will encompass all states. It is an experiment being forced on all Americans. There is no escaping from it. And if it bankrupts the country 30 years from now when Obama and Pelosi are retired and living in the Bahamas, what will they say? "Ooops, sorry about that."
If your sole objection is to the fact that this plan tries to make the more financially able pay for the less financially able, well, that's just being practical. For too long now, the poor have paid so that the rich can be, well, rich, so why not?
You are doing quite well in defining political liberalism. It is a philosophy that says someone has too much money and are "rich", and that those rich people are obligated to share their money with others. And this should be enforced by the federal government. I don't share that philosophy. So long as they earn their money ethically and legally, I don't believe Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, or Oprah Winfrey owe me a dime. If they wish to become philanthropists and set up charities, more power to them. In fact, I think nearly every wealthy person does so to some extent. Brad Pitt just paid to have a new unit added to our local hospital.
Unless you're trying to say that the rich have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, which seems to be your argument even if you don't explicitly admit it.
Legally, they should have as much responsibility as the next guy. I pay about 20% of my middle income bracket in federal taxes. The wealthy guy should be expected to pony up the same percentage - and not an ever-increasing amount to pay for ever-increasing federal programs.
Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
Honestly, I forget what point I was going to make there. I don't believe I finshed my thought.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 06:27 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: So like there are "a-theists" in the world, I am an "a-global warming-ist." I lack belief in it until someone can show me some good evidence.
What would it take to convince you?
There are 77 practicing, publishing climatologists in the world who are studying climate change. 75 of them agree that global warming is occurring and that human activity is the cause. So we've got a general consensus among experts, here.
Usually, a general consensus among experts is enough to convince me of the truth of something. I haven't actually gone out and read the publications on climate change, because, frankly, I wouldn't understand much of what I was reading.
But given that there are really only about 77 people who *do* have a thorough understanding of the issue, and 75 of them have reached the same conclusion, what exactly is the reason for doubting them?
Is it anything more complicated than that many people don't want their conclusions to be true?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 06:42 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: What I did say was that the rich didn't get rich out of thin air. They attained success and fortune because of our society, so I do feel they owe that society a certain degree of responsibility.
Why? If you are smarter or work harder to get your money than the next guy, I wouldn't expect you to owe more than the next guy simply because you benefitted from it. You earned it. You should owe nothing more than anyone else (percentage-wise).
Many successful people agree with this idea, and do many things to give back to society, philanthropy and such, on their own. But, even for those who don't (and there are many who don't), they earn more money, so I don't see how it isn't fair that they pay more money in taxes. Why not?
Let's not forget that philanthropy is tax deductible, after all.
Now that I've explained my mindset here, care to explain yours?
To repeat: what is your objection, exactly? Is it that you feel the rich should have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, or that you feel the poor deserve their lowly status, and thus don't deserve health care?
I think I've explained my mindset several times in these more recent posts. But as far as my original "objection" (expressed way back when), I will explain this again:
To use the argument "government for the betterment of society" is always wrongheaded, in my opinion. One cannot make this argument without sharing his bed with Lenin. This argument can be taken to all sorts of extremes. So you need to be prepared with an answer when the next guy in line who is more liberal than yourself wants universal employment or universal housing. When he uses the argument "government for the betterment of society" against you, what is your answer to him?
and probably to insure their employment at some future date (also to be federally-government managed). ...
Where did you get this one from? Nothing in the current health-care bill suggests this.
I'm not talking about the current bill. But do you have an objection to the government guaranteeing employment? Wouldn't it benefit society if everyone has a guaranteed job?
If you want to argue against government offered job training and placement, I'm more than willing to do so, but that'd be another subject, and we'd probably be better off creating a new thread for that.
I'll leave that to you, if you wish
No. I was attempting to illustrate the further left to your argument. If I take the position that the federal government should guarantee employment for all Americans because it will benefit society, would you object to that? And if it is my position that the federal government guarantee housing for all Americans because it will benefit society, would you object to that? And if it is my position that the federal government guarantee daycare for all working Americans because it will benefit society, would you object to that? If so to any of these, may I ask why?
If you want to make an argument for universal health care then I am saying you'd be better served using a different argument. You might use compassion, or keeping-up-with-the-Joneses (other nations that provide it), or just remaining competitive with other western nations. But this Marxist ideal of government redistributing wealth and saying certain portions of society owe more than others, and government should be the overseer of bettering society, and the obligatory class envy that is inherent with this philosophy, makes for a bad argument
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:06 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: I think I've explained my mindset several times in these more recent posts. But as far as my original "objection" (expressed way back when), I will explain this again:
To use the argument "government for the betterment of society" is always wrongheaded, in my opinion. One cannot make this argument without sharing his bed with Lenin. This argument can be taken to all sorts of extremes. So you need to be prepared with an answer when the next guy in line who is more liberal than yourself wants universal employment or universal housing. When he uses the argument "government for the betterment of society" against you, what is your answer to him?
I don't think you've completely explained your mindset. Police, roads, fire departments, schools, military defense, parks: aren't these all examples of government for the betterment of society?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: What would it take to convince you?
Some good data. Some solid evidence I can hang my hat on.
There are 77 practicing, publishing climatologists in the world who are studying climate change. 75 of them agree that global warming is occurring and that human activity is the cause. So we've got a general consensus among experts, here.
I remember a time when 75 out of 77 mechanics would insist you needed to get your oil changed every 3,000 miles. But a couple rogue mechanics would say "You don't really need to that often. Maybe 8,000 to 10,000 miles." That's what I have done all my life with several cars and never had a problem caused by sludgy oil. So where did this 3,000 rule come from? Oil companies? Or maybe some mechanics union somewhere? I don't know. Or maybe 75 out of 77 doctors would prescribe bleeding a patient when their humors were out of balance. Or all the experts the steel industry was able to produce when it was incapable of keeping fluoride out of drinking water.
If there is some evidence that has convinced the "experts" then I'd like to see it too.
Usually, a general consensus among experts is enough to convince me of the truth of something. I haven't actually gone out and read the publications on climate change, because, frankly, I wouldn't understand much of what I was reading.
You don't need to if there are increases in certain gases, a decrease in them, temperature changes, trends, etc. All you need are graphs. You don't need a group of eggheads saying you wouldn't understand the evidence, but just trust them.
But given that there are really only about 77 people who *do* have a thorough understanding of the issue, and 75 of them have reached the same conclusion, what exactly is the reason for doubting them?
Is it anything more complicated than that many people don't want their conclusions to be true?
The evidence absolutely cannot be all that complicated. It must be supported by trend data or it is not very solid. If the trend data is inconclusive on temperatures or the presence of specific gases, then global warming is inconclusive. If the trend data says we're warming up, then I will accept that, too. But I can't accept people telling me that I wouldn't understand it and I should accept their conclusions. That is highly suspicious to me.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:38 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: I don't think you've completely explained your mindset. Police, roads, fire departments, schools, military defense, parks: aren't these all examples of government for the betterment of society?
Police are local.
Roads are local (unless they transverse state lines).
Fire departments are local.
Schools are local.
Most parks are local (at least until Theodore Roosevelt).
Military defense is an obivious federal government function.
Local government does better society because it is grass roots and very close to the people it serves. I am talking about the federal government. That's the messiah of the extreme left. The left isn't terribly interested in local government.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:51 pm |
|
Ronson wrote:
The evidence absolutely cannot be all that complicated. It must be supported by trend data or it is not very solid. If the trend data is inconclusive on temperatures or the presence of specific gases, then global warming is inconclusive. If the trend data says we're warming up, then I will accept that, too. But I can't accept people telling me that I wouldn't understand it and I should accept their conclusions. That is highly suspicious to me.
Well, here's some trend data.
The thing is, to the question "Is warming occurring," the answer is an absolute, definite "yes." It's been warming steadily for about 200 years, and the warming has accelerated more and more rapidly in the last 50.
But at the same time, it's still cooler than it was in 900 A.D.: we just went through a 500-year "little ice age". And it's far cooler than it was during the Holocene, when human civilization began.
To the question "Is this temperature rise cyclical or human-driven," the answer is very complicated. Heck, we don't know why there was that "little ice age" during the last millennium. Was that human-driven, too? One study suggests that it occurred because the black plague halted or even reversed millennia of deforestation, but that's a very preliminary conclusion.
I don't think a layperson is at all qualified to look at a few graphs and make a conclusion about climate change. But 75 out of 77 scientists who examine that question for a living have concluded that we are in a period of human-driven warming, and I'm not going to tell them that their years of education and study are pointless, because I know better, because I've spent a few hours reading Internet skeptics.
Last edited on Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:58 pm by AyHyperbole
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:58 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: I don't think you've completely explained your mindset. Police, roads, fire departments, schools, military defense, parks: aren't these all examples of government for the betterment of society?
Police are local.
Roads are local (unless they transverse state lines).
Fire departments are local.
Schools are local.
Most parks are local (at least until Theodore Roosevelt).
Military defense is an obivious federal government function.
Local government does better society because it is grass roots and very close to the people it serves. I am talking about the federal government. That's the messiah of the extreme left. The left isn't terribly interested in local government.
The left is extremely interested in local government. A prevailing slogan of the left is "think global, act local": the liberal newspaper around her is all but obsessed with local politics.
Generally, I think you're oversimplifying the services you call "local." There are Federal police who operate in every U.S. state, and even state and county police are Federally-regulated. Schools are partially Federally funded and therefore subject to Federal jurisdiction. And, as you admit, many roads and parks are Federal.
But the real issue here is: are you suggesting that you support the concept of "local government for the benefit of society", and even "state government for the benefit of society," but not "national government for the benefit of society"?
If so, what's the reasoning behind that?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 08:33 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: Well, here's some trend data.
The thing is, to the question "Is warming occurring," the answer is an absolute, definite "yes." It's been warming steadily for about 200 years, and the warming has accelerated more and more rapidly in the last 50.
But at the same time, it's still cooler than it was in 900 A.D.: we just went through a 500-year "little ice age". And it's far cooler than it was during the Holocene, when human civilization began.
To the question "Is this temperature rise cyclical or human-driven," the answer is very complicated. Heck, we don't know why there was that "little ice age" during the last millennium. Was that human-driven, too? One study suggests that it occurred because the black plague halted or even reversed millennia of deforestation, but that's a very preliminary conclusion.
OK. I accept this data, the earth is experiencing a warming trend. Your center graph suggests it is "normal" warming and it is cyclical. In fact, it appears we were overdue for it. Is mankind accelerating it? I'd say it is quite probable. Humanity has flourished to the point where it is making an impact on environments all over the world. To what extent this is contributing, however, is inconclusive (as you say). It ultimately may not matter because our planet's normal cycles may be far more powerful than anything we can affect.
So what should we be doing about it, if anything? That's the million-dollar question. On the chance we are having a great impact on warming, do we enact international laws curtailing certain industries? What if the industries affected greatly benefit the economies of some countries at the great expense of others? Do we continue moving forward because there is a chance mankind is contributing to it and there's a chance we can slow it down, to the point that some of the ensuing threats are removed?
There is a huge political and economical component to this issue that can't simply be waved away. It must be considered if you want to get everybody on board.
As far as the "little ice age" being caused by the Black Plague, on the face of it, that seems absurd. The plague only had major effect in Europe, and the population of Europe at that time (and its lack of industrialization) would be a drop in the bucket globally.
I don't think a layperson is at all qualified to look at a few graphs and make a conclusion about climate change. But 75 out of 77 scientists who examine that question for a living have concluded that we are in a period of human-driven warming, and I'm not going to tell them that their years of education and study are pointless, because I know better, because I've spent a few hours reading Internet skeptics.
Neither am I prepared to allow 75 people among the entire world's population to set a course that might cripple the world's economies for centuries to come. They'd better be prepared to convince laypeople of their conclusions.
|
yoki
Dialogue Facilitator
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
| I agree with Ronson completely on this issue of global warming, for what it is worth.
____________________
____________________
When shit happens, God doesn't give one.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: The left is extremely interested in local government. A prevailing slogan of the left is "think global, act local": the liberal newspaper around her is all but obsessed with local politics.
Generally, I think you're oversimplifying the services you call "local." There are Federal police who operate in every U.S. state, and even state and county police are Federally-regulated. Schools are partially Federally funded and therefore subject to Federal jurisdiction. And, as you admit, many roads and parks are Federal.
But the real issue here is: are you suggesting that you support the concept of "local government for the benefit of society", and even "state government for the benefit of society," but not "national government for the benefit of society"?
If so, what's the reasoning behind that?
For one thing, the 10th Amendment. Local and state governments are given near carte blanche in the Constitution to try whatever program they like. If San Francisco wishes to tax its wealthy 90% to fund multicultural sensitivity training (or whatever) then have at it. My guess is the SF wealthy will quickly leave the area. Or if California wishes to do something similar, then fine. Again, I suspect the wealthy will abandon the state if it is too extreme. But when the federal government gets involved in such universal programs it becomes inescapable. The wealthy would have to leave the country to escape it. Businesses would need to relocate from America to Ireland to escape suffocating federal business taxes. All competition (state to state) is removed and all those eggs are put in one basket. If the basket is faulty, everything is lost.
Plus, local governments address local concerns. What is of great concern in Los Angeles may be a non issue in Detroit and Boise. Should a federal law be enacted to assist Los Angeles at the expense of other cities? Local governments are also closer to their constituents and are more answerable to them. It is easier to boot out a corrupt mayor than a corrupt senator, simply because the senator might have special interests in far-flung areas to support him.
The federal government should only be in the business to address issues that cannot be addressed locally. Personally, I can see exceptions to this rule if the U.S. begins falling behind other western nations to the point where America begins to experience decay from lack of attention. Like, say, a new technology arrives that will radically affect world economies. If Germany decided to spend $XXX amount of money getting this technology into every German's home, then the U.S. should be prepared to follow suit.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 09:00 pm |
|
Ronson wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:So what should we be doing about it, if anything? That's the million-dollar question. On the chance we are having a great impact on warming, do we enact international laws curtailing certain industries? What if the industries affected greatly benefit the economies of some countries at the great expense of others? Do we continue moving forward because there is a chance mankind is contributing to it and there's a chance we can slow it down, to the point that some of the ensuing threats are removed?
I agree that that is the question that should be under discussion. What does this global warming mean for us? What are the risks of action, what are the risks of inaction, and how do we weigh them?
But, among laypeople on the Internet, no one seems to be discussing that question. There seem to be only two camps: "OMG GLOBAL WARMING EVERYBODY PANIC!!1!", and "These scientists are liars and evil agents of a wicked government with a hidden agenda."
And both those camps are, frankly, retarded. They're distractions. We need to be talking cost-benefit analysis, but that's very difficult - and people just don't bother.
And one of the casualties of that is science itself. When people don't think a factory should cut its emissions, they don't talk cost-benefit analysis - they just say "the scientists in question are stupid liars."
And we've just set the stage for the worldview that it's okay to deny any research you'd rather not believe.
As far as the "little ice age" being caused by the Black Plague, on the face of it, that seems absurd. The plague only had major effect in Europe, and the population of Europe at that time (and its lack of industrialization) would be a drop in the bucket globally.
As I understand it, this is a question of deforestation. Apparently, Europe was one of the most heavily forested regions in the world, and was badly deforested during the lower medieval period, when the population was growing and pretty much everything was made out of wood. When the plague wiped out nearly half the population, the forests made a recovery.
But I'm also skeptical that that, in and of itself, could be enough to account for the "little ice age," considering that, when you really look at it, the black plague only caused a tiny wobble in the population of the Earth:
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12th, 2009 11:35 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Not just the devil...I like to think those details have helped us try to achieve the lofty goals set at our founding. As goals go, not a bad one, I'd say.
Interestingly enough, I remember my father saying that very thing thirty years ago. Still, for many, Social Security is all they have, and I, for one, don't begrudge that when I pay my FICA taxes.
True enough, but don't you think that for too long, too many people have died unnecessarily due to lack of access to health care? Or do you subscribe the the theory that the poor should just die off and "decrease the surplus population"?
You obviously have a very Dickensian view of the world.
Not at all. But the attitude you seem to be displaying does echo Scrooge's words pretty closely.
If I've got it wrong, please explain what I'm missing, because I have to admit, I can't see the difference keeping our current system, where insurance company bean counters decide who can and can't have access to health care, and Scrooge's famous quote.
Can you cite how many people have died in the U.S. due to a lack of health care? Are there any statistics to indicate how big a problem this is? And if so, can we compare these staistics to any of the European systems that are being advocated?
A recent Harvard University study claims 45,000 per year in the US. (Here is a link to the actual study in PDF form). This site cites similar numbers, but suggests the actual figure is higher, due to insurance companies finanical constraints.
As for comparisons to other nations, here is one that cites UN WHO statistics, and this one cites the Commonwealth Fund, which places the US last in a comparison of five other nations: Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K.
And, just for fun, here's a link to a site that debunks many lies told by those who oppose health care reform.
That about cover it?
-- A2SG, I can google for more if you like.....
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12th, 2009 03:35 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: A recent Harvard University study claims 45,000 per year in the US. (Here is a link to the actual study in PDF form). This site cites similar numbers, but suggests the actual figure is higher, due to insurance companies finanical constraints.
As for comparisons to other nations, here is one that cites UN WHO statistics, and this one cites the Commonwealth Fund, which places the US last in a comparison of five other nations: Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K.
And, just for fun, here's a link to a site that debunks many lies told by those who oppose health care reform.
That about cover it?
Of the above links, the "news-medical" is the most useful. Others draw conclusions from the data that I wouldn't, some sources are obviously biased, and one flat-out claims that infant mortality is the primary problem in the U.S. (compared with western nations) on life expectancy and does not link it to health insurance. It doesn't really cite what the cause is.
Regarding the news-medical link, there is some good, objective documentation in there that indicates a problem. I am not prepared to declare what the solution(s) is yet.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12th, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote:
And require other segments of society to access them or be penalized?
Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
I remember what I was alluding to. Pelosi is saying that this bill requires people to get insurance, either private or public. Failure to do so may result in jail
http://www.examiner.com/x-9597-Nashville-Health-Care-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Pelosi-Jail-Time-for-Those-Who-Do-Not-Comply
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13th, 2009 04:34 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I'll bet you did. John D. Rockefeller owned an oil company, so if you bought gas for your car, you helped him, or others like him, make their money.
If you wish to look at it that way, they also helped me with a product or a service. I consider that a wash. They don't owe me anything.
I never said they owed you, personally, a thing. I only suggested that they have a certain responsibility toward the society that allowed them to be so successful.
I take it you disagree?
See, the rich didn't make their money out of thin air. They provided products people bought or services people paid for, and were successful at it. If it weren't for those people, ol' John D. would have just been sitting at his gas station with nothing to do but play solitaire.
Don't you feel they have some degree of responsiblity to their consumer base, out of self-interest if no other reason?
Yes, they do have a responsibility to their consumer base, and that responsibility was fulfilled through guarantees for their products or services, and if they were adequate and functioned as advertised. I bought a 1966 Ford Rambler in 1977. Does this mean Ford should now owe me free health care for life?
No. But surely Ford, and other successful business owners, would benefit from having a customer base that doesn't die on them due to lack of access to health care, don't you think?
Let me ask you straight out: do you feel the rich have no responsibilities whatsoever to the society that allowed them to get rich?
To go further, do you feel anyone has any responsibilities to the society they live in?
-- A2SG, sounds to me you feel the rich owe nothing to no one, and can just count their money as the world crumbles down around them.....
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13th, 2009 05:03 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I'm curious...why do you say that's the "primary purpose"? In the Constitution, "provide for the common defense" comes fourth. Would the first thing mentioned, "form a more perfect union" be the primary purpose?
That "more perfect union" was the transition between disconnected colonies and the formation of states. That was long ago attained.
So the US has been perfect since 1776? Really???
Further, isn't that pretty much the same thing as improving society?
A "more perfect union"? No. Not unless you are misinterpreting it.
I think the idea of a "perfect union" is more an ideal than anything else. I interpret that to mean we, as a nation, should always be striving to improve our society.
Obviously, you feel otherwise, and consider our nation to already be perfect. I have to say, that completely astounds me.
True enough. And, while certain states do what they can to provide health care to their citizens (we have a pretty good program for that here in Massachusetts, in fact), but since most states do not, or cannot, it's felt that the federal government needed to step in.
Why don't the Americans who want free health care simply move to Massachusetts for it?
We're not a big enough state.
California long ago decided to set up a very generous welfare system, and there are a lot of Americans who flock to California to take advantage of that.
Which is probably part of the reason for their bad financial situation these days.
I think this makes for a good set up. If California is more generous than it is fiscally responsible, then it goes bankrupt. Nevada, Arizona and Oregon might look at the California model and say "We'd better be a little more responsible", and they don't go bankrupt. And all the while, Americans have the freedom to relocate from liberal systems to conservative systems, and vice versa.
Sure, though relocating so often can be problemmatic. There are a lot of people who simply don't have the means to just up and move whenever they need to see a doctor.
But this proposed universal health care will encompass all states. It is an experiment being forced on all Americans. There is no escaping from it. And if it bankrupts the country 30 years from now when Obama and Pelosi are retired and living in the Bahamas, what will they say? "Ooops, sorry about that."
What has George W. Bush said so far about his getting us into as bad a financial situation as we're currently in?
Look at it this way: if the US had some form of universal health care plan ten years ago, the current financial situation would very likely not exist today. A major factor in the curretn recession was the failure of mortgage companies, and one of the main reasons people default on mortgages is due to health care costs. If not for that overwhelming burden, people would have been able to pay their mortgages, and that industry wouldn't have had the failures it had.
If your sole objection is to the fact that this plan tries to make the more financially able pay for the less financially able, well, that's just being practical. For too long now, the poor have paid so that the rich can be, well, rich, so why not?
You are doing quite well in defining political liberalism. It is a philosophy that says someone has too much money and are "rich", and that those rich people are obligated to share their money with others. And this should be enforced by the federal government.
If by that you mean the rich are expected to pay taxes, that's true enough.
I don't share that philosophy.
Obviously. You seem to think the rich bear no obligations or responsibilities to the society they live in whatsoever.
So long as they earn their money ethically and legally, I don't believe Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, or Oprah Winfrey owe me a dime.
Where did you get the idea that I ever thought they did?
If they wish to become philanthropists and set up charities, more power to them. In fact, I think nearly every wealthy person does so to some extent. Brad Pitt just paid to have a new unit added to our local hospital.
Right. As I said before, many do. And those donations are tax deductible.
But you seem to be suggesting that the successful have no responsibilities toward their society whatsoever, and that attitude mystifies me. I'm not rich by any means, but I feel I owe a responsibility to my society...why shouldn't they?
Unless you're trying to say that the rich have no responsibilities to society whatsoever, which seems to be your argument even if you don't explicitly admit it.
Legally, they should have as much responsibility as the next guy. I pay about 20% of my middle income bracket in federal taxes. The wealthy guy should be expected to pony up the same percentage - and not an ever-increasing amount to pay for ever-increasing federal programs.
If the rich paid a flat rate like that, I doubt there would be any problems. But with tax shelters, deductions and the like, I don't believe that is actually the case.
Besides, the rich have something you and I don't have: wealth. A good proportion of their income comes from that, not from a job like you and me. That's why there's such a thing as a capital gains tax.
But, I fully admit, my knowledge about taxes and the like is severly limited. But I do understand enough to know that increasing the tax rate on the rich creates far, far less of a burden on them than it does on the rest of us, and since their degree of success affords them a greater share of our society's benefits and privileges, I don't see the problem expecting more out of them.
When it comes down to the point when people simply cannot survive or pay their mortgage due to excessive medical bills, I don't think it's too much to expect those who can help to do so. Even if it means they don't buy a seventh Mazzaratti this fiscal year.
-- A2SG, I'd do it if I were rich, gladly happily and without complaint whatsoever......
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13th, 2009 05:35 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: What I did say was that the rich didn't get rich out of thin air. They attained success and fortune because of our society, so I do feel they owe that society a certain degree of responsibility.
Why? If you are smarter or work harder to get your money than the next guy, I wouldn't expect you to owe more than the next guy simply because you benefitted from it. You earned it. You should owe nothing more than anyone else (percentage-wise).
I guess we simply disagree here. I feel that those who gain much from society (as the rich have), have a greater responsibility to that society in return. Obviously you, and many rich people, disagree.
Though, I have to say, it does seem to me that those who got rich because they are smarter or work harder often do agree with me on this, and do give back to society do a greater degree than those who inheritied their wealth. At least, that's my impression.
I think I've explained my mindset several times in these more recent posts. But as far as my original "objection" (expressed way back when), I will explain this again:
To use the argument "government for the betterment of society" is always wrongheaded, in my opinion. One cannot make this argument without sharing his bed with Lenin.
Sure one can. It depends on how you define betternment of society. As Hype pointed out, building roads betters society, as does creating jobs, offering education, supporting the arts, and maintaining a military defense from enemies. It's a pretty broad, general term.
Conservatives feel it betters society to let the rich get richer, so that their wealth might "trickle down" to everyone else. President Reagan and his supporters used government to achieve that betterment. Granted, it was proven to be wrong, but that's another story.
This argument can be taken to all sorts of extremes. So you need to be prepared with an answer when the next guy in line who is more liberal than yourself wants universal employment or universal housing. When he uses the argument "government for the betterment of society" against you, what is your answer to him?
I'd say make your case, propose your bill and let Congress decide on it.
See, I take these things on a case by case basis. I don't consider all ideas to better society to be bad ones automatically.
and probably to insure their employment at some future date (also to be federally-government managed). ...
Where did you get this one from? Nothing in the current health-care bill suggests this.
I'm not talking about the current bill.
Then where did that idea come from? Did you just make it up so you'd have something to argue against? Because I don't see anyone, anywhere, suggesting such a scheme.
But do you have an objection to the government guaranteeing employment? Wouldn't it benefit society if everyone has a guaranteed job?
Sure, but as I said before, I don't know how that would work. It sounds too impractical, frankly.
But if you, or anyone for that matter, has an idea about how to do it, feel free to write your congressman about it!
If you want to argue against government offered job training and placement, I'm more than willing to do so, but that'd be another subject, and we'd probably be better off creating a new thread for that.
I'll leave that to you, if you wish
No. I was attempting to illustrate the further left to your argument.
But I didn't put forth any argument about guaranteeing jobs for everyone. The only argument I put forth was that health care should be available to everyone. I don't see how that idea can be expanded to job training or placement.
If I take the position that the federal government should guarantee employment for all Americans because it will benefit society, would you object to that? And if it is my position that the federal government guarantee housing for all Americans because it will benefit society, would you object to that? And if it is my position that the federal government guarantee daycare for all working Americans because it will benefit society, would you object to that? If so to any of these, may I ask why?
How can I object? Those positions are opinions, nothing more. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The argument alone means nothing. For me to object, I'd have to see a plan proposed on how to achieve that goal. I can object to details and plans, I can't object to an opinion.
If you want to make an argument for universal health care then I am saying you'd be better served using a different argument. You might use compassion, or keeping-up-with-the-Joneses (other nations that provide it), or just remaining competitive with other western nations. But this Marxist ideal of government redistributing wealth and saying certain portions of society owe more than others, and government should be the overseer of bettering society, and the obligatory class envy that is inherent with this philosophy, makes for a bad argument.
Well, when you put it that way....
See, that's not the argument I see here. The argument I see is that everyone in the US should have access to health care, including those who aren't rich. We can object to specific ideas on how to achieve that goal, but that is the argument itself.
So, I guess I'll just ask the question: do you feel that everyone should have access to health care, regardless of wealth?
-- A2SG, if your main objection is that the rich are taxed to pay for this...do you propose a better method of paying for this, or should the poor just die already and decrease the surplus population?
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13th, 2009 05:37 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: A recent Harvard University study claims 45,000 per year in the US. (Here is a link to the actual study in PDF form). This site cites similar numbers, but suggests the actual figure is higher, due to insurance companies finanical constraints.
As for comparisons to other nations, here is one that cites UN WHO statistics, and this one cites the Commonwealth Fund, which places the US last in a comparison of five other nations: Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K.
And, just for fun, here's a link to a site that debunks many lies told by those who oppose health care reform.
That about cover it?
Of the above links, the "news-medical" is the most useful. Others draw conclusions from the data that I wouldn't, some sources are obviously biased, and one flat-out claims that infant mortality is the primary problem in the U.S. (compared with western nations) on life expectancy and does not link it to health insurance. It doesn't really cite what the cause is.
Regarding the news-medical link, there is some good, objective documentation in there that indicates a problem. I am not prepared to declare what the solution(s) is yet.
I guess it's a start that you recognize there's a problem. Many don't. Generally, they're the ones rich enough that they don't have a problem getting health care. But for those who aren't in that category, the problem is unavoidable.
But, even if you're not prepared to offer a solution, would you care to suggest a few ideas toward one?
-- A2SG, despite what the previous administration seemed to believe, discussion between those of differing opinions isn't a bad thing....
Last edited on Fri Nov 13th, 2009 11:29 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13th, 2009 05:43 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote:
And require other segments of society to access them or be penalized?
Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
I remember what I was alluding to. Pelosi is saying that this bill requires people to get insurance, either private or public. Failure to do so may result in jail
http://www.examiner.com/x-9597-Nashville-Health-Care-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Pelosi-Jail-Time-for-Those-Who-Do-Not-Comply
Well, to be accurate, that letter only says that criminal penalties would come as a result of not paying taxes, not just because someone failed to get health insurance.
But, I believe this provision is only in the bill due to objection to a public option. Were there such an available option, there'd be no need for criminal penalties.
Another argument for a public option, it seems.
Look at it this way: someone refuses to pay for health insurance for himself and his family. All well and good, but what happens if he gets sick? Will he just die quietly in a corner, refusing all attempts to help him? I doubt it. He'll go to a hospital or emergency room, where they will treat him, no matter what. Same goes if he gets into an accident. What if he's unconscious when the EMTs get there and can't say "no thanks, I'll just lie here and die, you guys can go home"?
So, given that, what's the problem with expecting him to pay extra taxes if he refuses to pay for health care on his own? That's all that's being said in the article you cited, and it's only if he refuses to pay his taxes that he gets penalized. Fact is, we all face criminal charges if we don't pay our taxes.
-- A2SG, just ask Al Capone....
Last edited on Fri Nov 13th, 2009 09:38 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Current time is 05:10 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
