Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2009/08/24 19:30:22
Subject: The role of personal responsibility in the health care debate
Halanchos, if/when this health care reform takes place, and somehow you managed to make 250k$+ over the last year, you should worry ever so much about it. If not, then I am not exactly sure why you would worry so much.
Anyway, I do not support the Iraq war, my aunt doesn't like the public school systems so she puts her kid in private school. At no point were either of us told that we could just forget about paying those taxes, and in all honesty the fact remains that I support this country as I can until I decide to drop dead or move out.
If you feel unjustly taxed and the government is just eating away at your wallet... leave the country and find a better one. I plan to do this if the reform doesn't make any real changes, you can plan to do it if it actually manages to.
2009/08/24 19:37:59
Subject: The role of personal responsibility in the health care debate
Well, to be honest, I plan to make over 250,000 a year after a few years of civil service.
Where I live, one can make $300,000 a year as an orthopedic trauma surgeon.(The guys who fix your joints after serious injury).
I never said anything about not paying taxes. All I said is that I personally believe that this healthcare plan should be a donation instead of a tax.
This plan isn't going to change a thing. I may leave the country though because the nation is split 50-50. If it is passed, then half of the nation will be upset(the half with guns) that the government didn't listen to them, if violence erupts then I may leave. If it isn't passed then the same thing happens minus the guns.
2009/08/24 19:48:58
Subject: The role of personal responsibility in the health care debate
halonachos wrote:Dogma, how in the hell are you going to say that it isn't done by city when in fact I live in a state that has school systems done by the city. My experience with this being true trumps your belief that it isn't. I was trying to reach some middle ground and be nice, but no.
Because I know it isn't done by municipality. For a fact. Your district might coincide with your city, but that isn't the same thing as having education overseen by the municipality itself. And, honestly, I have no reason to trust anything you say. You have shown a clear propensity to ignore, or distort, facts in the course of argument. Whether or not this is intentional it is clearly something you do.
After writing this it occurs to me that schools might be overseen by municipality where you live, while they aren't where I live. Damnable state legislative differences.
halonachos wrote:
Am I morally obligated to help the infirm, yes. Am I morally obligated to pay money to help those who can't afford care, yes.
However, I am also morally obligated to take care of my family, with my family outweighing strangers in any situation. I am also morally obligated to take care of myself.
Seeing as though we are in a recession, I am interested in keeping money within my family and I am therefore doing a greater good in terms of quality of that good than if I just gave money to a homeless person.
So you're allowing the recession (an economic factor, one might even call it a circumstance) to overcome your moral obligation to help the infirm, and the destitute.
halonachos wrote:
And why would people donate generously you ask? Perhaps it will be because they believe in the cause and want to see it put in place. I believe in civic league sports and am more willing to donate to civic leagues than I am to a homeless bum. Why, because I believe that the civic league instills values and that giving money to a bum does relatively nothing besides short term benefits.
See, here's the thing. You're talking about what might happen, I'm talking about what must happen in the course of logical necessity. One of those points is a very strong one, the other is just speculation. I'll leave you to determine which.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/08/24 22:42:19
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2009/08/24 19:50:54
Subject: Re:The role of personal responsibility in the health care debate
Halanchos wrote:This plan isn't going to change a thing. I may leave the country though because the nation is split 50-50. If it is passed, then half of the nation will be upset(the half with guns) that the government didn't listen to them, if violence erupts then I may leave. If it isn't passed then the same thing happens minus the guns.
Well, I agree with you there. I think that there may end up being some very serious repercussions regardless of which way this reform goes. I find it funny in a pretty demented way because the country is not actually split down the middle regardless of what the Republicans say, there is a huge multi-faceted rift in this country that pits old vs young, black vs. white, gun vs. no-gun, up vs. down, and so on.
Besides being way too easy to say that 50/50 has any aspect of reality is wrong, there is truth to the gun vs. no-gun thing. Overall their simply is no way for an armed uprising to actually make a difference. Non-violence from all sides could provide a very real cultural debate, which is what this has basically boiled down to.
The main question is, does it even matter that people are without healthcare while in practically the same situation as most of the country even matter? Should they have access to this care when they are in need, or are they forced to rely on the kindness of others... which is a frakking joke. Even if you are a kind enough person to donate more money than the government would tax you (explain this to me 12 more times so the mantra actually means something to me besides jargonistic side-stepping of taxes) most people are not, this whole people are inherently good thing is flawed so deeply and on so many philosophical and psychological levels.
Halanchos wrote:Why, because I believe that the civic league instills values and that giving money to a bum does relatively nothing besides short term benefits.
So... hmmm. If someone is getting money that you donate they are not a bum? Or do you have some sort of relative scale of bum-atude? I know real bums, and they are the kind of people that ignore their health most of the time, and would not be a burden on the system at any rate. The rest of the people that you are talking about supporting/not really though supporting, these people are not bad (nor are some of those bums by your definitions) and many of them are simply homeless due to the recession. I live in California where there is no extra work, if you are fired that is pretty much it and you better hope that you have a safety net set up. I live in California where the cost of living is so high that you actually save money by being homeless; and I am quite sure that most people have never worked a full time job, while going to school at night, and living out of the back of a van. I know at least 3 people that do that, and at least a dozen who have tried and failed at it, which is actually not that hard to fail at in any way.
Without my family and help from my community I would be on the street. The fact that living on the street does not really scare me, and I would prefer to just hunt rabbits in the wild does not change the fact that I am better off in a house. A house that I can barely afford to live in, a house that I am stuck in until the economy gets a boost again and jobs return. Saying that the U.S. is a country where you can do anything is like saying you can fly on the moon... which you simply cannot, especially when the cultural "system" of the U.S. is set up to keep most people on their knees.
HP wrote:Grassley added that while he did "believe it's possible to reach an agreement" on health care, the political landscape had become so polarized that it was incredibly unlikely.
Pretty much what I have been thinking, no loss, Bi-partisonship was a delay trick anyway, not particularly hard to understand why the Dems want more time to get ready for this punch. I think the Reps are going to get hit pretty hard by how this turns out.
This is really a very strange situation, I do not know what to think about all of the politics involved here.
