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.

Dogma
Voting is the means by which the populace expresses its will. It isn't the only factor in government decision making, nor should it be, but pretending that it has no effect at all is just rhetorical nonsense.

When both Republicans and Democrats representatives "compromise", instead of sticking to their platform or principles, and presidents promise they will do certain things and constantly do the opposite once in office, proves to me how little the voting effects the outcomes the citizens desire.

Dogma said:
Sure, but all social arrangements eventually change. The argument that something will eventually cease to be sustainable isn't a particularly compelling reason not to do it.

My argument was not to end the programs now. My concern is that we get ahead of the curve to either replace or change it before it goes broke. That's why I brought up the point about how cutting the US military budget would be a good place to start. Even then, that's just a short term solution. The US debt is becoming catastrophic, and the US dollar losing value. You can't soak the rich indefinitely, or continue raise taxes on the middle class.

That's what immigration is for, and its probably the single biggest asset the US has going forward. At least provided xenophobia and protectionism don't conspire to kill it off.

Sure. Legal immigration is a good thing. No argument there. But illegal immigration brings unskilled labor into the economy, and taxes an already overburden social programs to provide for them and their children born as citizens in the US. How can any social system continue to be sustainable to provide for those who pay little or no taxes into the system?

ShumaGorath wrote:It comes with being a nation of over entitled children.

How does providing a new entitlement program (governmenet provided health care) reduce the problem of over entitlement?

Orlanth wrote:From our experiences with the NHS I can only say that Obama has this one right.

Not often I actually have much nice to say about your current president, but credit where credits due. Big medicine has spared no expense on the propoganda efforts to halt social medicine, although social medicine schemes are a large part of what separates developed countries from the third world. The US is strangely backward in this critical area of societal development and Obama is right to challenge this.

When you have got your equivalent of the NHS you will see for yourself what we already know in the UK, France Canada and elsewhere, and will want to keep it. It will be expensive, it may grow as dinosaur like bureaucracy, but it will be worth it.

Actually he doesn't, at all. Thats why he lost the old fart vote, and baby, the old fart vote actually cotes in comparison to you young cheese eating surrender monkeys!* (*no actual cheese eating surrender monkeys were harmed in this making of that statment)

Again, under Obamacare $500BN was taken from the Medicare budget for his new proposals.

Brushfire wrote:
When both Republicans and Democrats representatives "compromise", instead of sticking to their platform or principles, and presidents promise they will do certain things and constantly do the opposite once in office, proves to me how little the voting effects the outcomes the citizens desire.

If representatives never compromised, then the government would cease to function. Compromise is basically part and parcel to any democracy that has more than one major party.

Promises are tricky things that generally turn on the audience not paying much attention. I make this point all the time, but it bears repeating that statements involving promises to work on a thing are not the same as promises to do a thing.

In any case, voting affects exactly what its supposed to, the person in sitting in office representing a given constituency. It by design that voters have no direct say in the making of legislation or policy. In my opinion its fairly good design, as most people have no business discussing either law, or state policy; let alone actually making them.

Brushfire wrote:
My argument was not to end the programs now. My concern is that we get ahead of the curve to either replace or change it before it goes broke.

That won't happen, oddly enough given your previous point, because such a decision would be wildly unpopular. If there were a means for politicians to make political hay by fixing, or replacing, social security then it would have already been done. There is some sympathy for adding on to it, but anyone that actually touches it tends to get smeared; just look at Ryan.

Brushfire wrote:
That's why I brought up the point about how cutting the US military budget would be a good place to start. Even then, that's just a short term solution. The US debt is becoming catastrophic, and the US dollar losing value. You can't soak the rich indefinitely, or continue raise taxes on the middle class.

You also can't maintain the value of the dollar indefinitely, or national prosperity indefinitely. Social Security needs to be adjusted, no doubt, and the military budget also needs to be cut. Both are short-term solutions in the sense of putting the country on track for the next 3-4 decades (probably more like 1 or 2), but that's basically all you're ever going to get at any given point.

Brushfire wrote:
Sure. Legal immigration is a good thing. No argument there. But illegal immigration brings unskilled labor into the economy, and taxes an already overburden social programs to provide for them and their children born as citizens in the US. How can any social system continue to be sustainable to provide for those who pay little or no taxes into the system?

What significant social programs are illegal immigrants taking advantage of? Certainly not Medicare or Social Security.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Actually he doesn't, at all. Thats why he lost the old fart vote...

I'm confused, since when does voting behavior indicate who has the right position?

Frazzled wrote:
Again, under Obamacare $500BN was taken from the Medicare budget for his new proposals.

Yes, he lost the elderly vote because he cut Medicare, just like anyone else would lose the elderly vote if they cut Medicare. That doesn't indicate that his proposal was incorrect, or that he was wrong to question the way healthcare works in this country, it indicates that he signed a bill into law which was unpopular with the elderly.

For someone who spends so much time ranting about how stupid politicians are for pandering to certain groups, you're focusing an awful lot on the political hay, or lack thereof, that can be made from a given decision.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It comes with being a nation of over entitled children.

How does providing a new entitlement program (governmenet provided health care) reduce the problem of over entitlement?

I was speaking to the personality trait of being overly entitled and childlike. Not the political term "entitlements" referring to anything that is owed via a program.

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It comes with being a nation of over entitled children.

How does providing a new entitlement program (governmenet provided health care) reduce the problem of over entitlement?

I was speaking to the personality trait of being overly entitled and childlike. Not the political term "entitlements" referring to anything that is owed via a program.

I think that entitlement programs nurture and support the personality trait of being "overly entitled and childlike." Children don't pay for their own things, someone else pays for them. Adults take care of themselves.

biccat wrote:Adults take care of themselves.

Sure, by acting as a political block in order to ensure that entitlements exist. Unless you're trying to argue that isn't the same as entering into a contract for your labor, which I suppose you could, but it would be stretch.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It comes with being a nation of over entitled children.

How does providing a new entitlement program (governmenet provided health care) reduce the problem of over entitlement?

I was speaking to the personality trait of being overly entitled and childlike. Not the political term "entitlements" referring to anything that is owed via a program.

I think that entitlement programs nurture and support the personality trait of being "overly entitled and childlike." Children don't pay for their own things, someone else pays for them. Adults take care of themselves.

I'm pretty sure every politician ever saying that "America is the best and smartest and coolest and most wonderful and most fearless and most honorable and most adult and most perfect and most pretty country in the world" combined with a historically high standard of living (and historically high rates of education though we know where thats going) contribute to it. Check out the Niel Gaimen or Osama threads for some nice perspective on how we live in a nation of fething manchildren.

The fact that people can still parrot "We have the best healthcare system in the world" is indicative of the sheer overwhelming amount of prideful ignorance that this country breaks its bread on.

Dogma said:
Promises are tricky things that generally turn on the audience not paying much attention. I make this point all the time, but it bears repeating that statements involving promises to work on a thing are not the same as promises to do a thing.

No question about the foolishnesses of trusting the veracity of a promise from any politician. Your statement proves my point how ineffective voting is. We must accept the premise that political candidates really are powerless, and will lie about their campaign promises. And accept the fact that they will be forced to compromise, making real change in the status quo insignificant. Such compromises do not inspire confidence that US leaders will ever get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or solve the increasing debt that threatens to crash all the social programs.

Dogma said:
In any case, voting affects exactly what its supposed to, the person in sitting in office representing a given constituency. It by design that voters have no direct say in the making of legislation or policy. In my opinion its fairly good design, as most people have no business discussing either law, or state policy; let alone actually making them.

In other words, citizens are just too ignorant or stupid to have any serious say in running the country, and should leave it to their betters. Alexander Hamilton thought the same way. Which proves again my point that voting is just a placebo for the masses to make them think they have any real say about the nation's policies. So just welcome the new boss, who is the same as the 'ol boss.

Brushfire wrote:
No question about the foolishnesses of trusting the veracity of a promise from any politician.

I think you misunderstood my point., though I didn't make it as clearly as I should have. Politicians rarely make explicit, testable promises because it just make good sense to do so. When you promise to work on something, you can give it token effort, fail to accomplish anything, and have fulfilled your promise. When you promise to do something, something other than work in general, you can very easily come up wanting. This isn't a failing of the politician, or even particularly manipulative behavior (not necessarily anyway), its merely the tendency of the electorate to hear what it wants, as opposed to what is said.

Brushfire wrote:
Your statement proves my point how ineffective voting is. We must accept the premise that political candidates really are powerless, and will lie about their campaign promises.

No, that's not correct. You're inferring an absolute where none exists. There is a difference between lacking absolute power, and being powerless. The issue of lying is simply part of dealing with people.

Brushfire wrote:
And accept the fact that they will be forced to compromise, making real change in the status quo insignificant.

And yet we have things like Social Security, Medicare, a professional army, and a Constitutional Amendment banning discrimination according to race; none of which existed when the nation was founded.

Brushfire wrote:
Such compromises do not inspire confidence that US leaders will ever get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or solve the increasing debt that threatens to crash all the social programs.

Well, if the status quo cannot be changed, then whether or not you have confidence in the system is irrelevant.

Brushfire wrote:
In other words, citizens are just too ignorant or stupid to have any serious say in running the country, and should leave it to their betters.

Many citizens are, yes. Like anything else, politics requires a particular set of skills in order to succeed. Those that have those skills, and the desire to use them, will do so. Those that don't, won't.

Brushfire wrote:
Which proves again my point that voting is just a placebo for the masses to make them think they have any real say about the nation's policies. So just welcome the new boss, who is the same as the 'ol boss.

No, voting in the United States is exactly what it is advertised as: the right to have a say in who represents you in government.

This whole thing about the new boss being the same as the old boss isn't born out by history given that Abraham Lincoln has virtually nothing in common with Bill Clinton.

Dogma wrote:
This whole thing about the new boss being the same as the old boss isn't born out by history given that Abraham Lincoln has virtually nothing in common with Bill Clinton.

But there is much in common with both the presidencies of Bush and Obama. Both have expanded the size of government and increased the national debt. Both have initiated war and escalated it. Both have implemented surveillance programs such as the Patriot act, TSA, and others upon US citizens. The Republicans expanded Medicare, and the Democrats promoted Obama's National Health care.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.

Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

~ Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time

Brushfire wrote:
But there is much in common with both the presidencies of Bush and Obama. Both have expanded the size of government and increased the national debt. Both have initiated war and escalated it. Both have implemented surveillance programs such as the Patriot act, TSA, and others upon US citizens. The Republicans expanded Medicare, and the Democrats promoted Obama's National Health care.

Right, consecutive Presidents will always be similar to one another, excepting major crises on the level of the Great Depression, or the Civil War. That's just the nature of running a country which is governed by law and order. You don't get to change whatever you want.

More to the point, if President A and President Z are very different, then somewhere along the line change had to occur. That change can either be sudden, implying that very few voters have choice, or gradual, implying that most of them do.

Brushfire wrote:
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.

Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

~ Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time

Right, but you're taking an argument regarding the needs of the state, and really the nation, vis a vis stability and construing it as the absence of choice. Voter choice, and national desire are important over the long term. Of course they won't make a huge difference in the short term, at least barring a massive crisis, that's the point. Successful states don't follow the moment to moment whims of the populace because, in general, what the masses want collectively is stupid, or at least so ridiculously vague, and disjointed with respect to itself that its implementation would be either catastrophic or impossible.

Brushfire wrote:The only reasons the countries you mention have been able to sustain their national health programs is because they have not spent the same proportion of money of their national budgets on military adventures like the US has—which in my mind is a good thing. Even so, it will become unsustainable as the youthful work force decreases.

This is wrong. The US healthcare system costs more per capita than any other system on Earth, by a factor of almost 2. The amount of waste in the system is incredible.

Frazzled wrote:Again, under Obamacare $500BN was taken from the Medicare budget for his new proposals.

You keep saying this, but it isn't true. Obama's plan has projected that efficiencies in the reforms they putting in place will create $500 billion in savings. The CBO agrees with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Children don't pay for their own things, someone else pays for them. Adults take care of themselves.

Spoiled children and childish adults frame the question in terms of things they're entitled to, and then proceed to jealously protect these things, often showing great resentment towards anything anyone else might have.

Shuma's description was apt, and it applies to both sides of politics.

This is wrong. The US healthcare system costs more per capita than any other system on Earth, by a factor of almost 2. The amount of waste in the system is incredible.

You don't go far enough. The amount of waste is symptomatic throughout all US government programs. Too many agencies competing for money and resources for thier priorities. The Pentagon cannot account for the billions of dollars missing in rebuilding Iraq. Medicare is rife with fraud abuse. If you want to save what we have for the time being, the military budget is the best available candidate for immediate cuts. Wouldn't hurt to cut foreign aid too. You cannot have guns and butter. LBJ tried to pay for both Vietnam and create the Great Society, and failed.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, under Obamacare $500BN was taken from the Medicare budget for his new proposals.

sebster replied:
You keep saying this, but it isn't true. Obama's plan has projected that efficiencies in the reforms they putting in place will create $500 billion in savings. The CBO agrees with this.

Oh please. The best laid plans of mice and men. You really think Obama, who has no experince in finance, or any of his chosen staff who came up with this, really understand how to make a national health program for 300 million run efficently without the waste or fraud abuse? It's all therotical until the rubber hits the road. Bush's adminstration thought the Iraqi war would pay for itself with oil, and we saw how well that turned out. US government programs running over budget and being wasteful is a well established historical rubric. The few rare exceptions, if any, only prove the rule. I'm not merely picking on Obama--Many presidents before him had the same goals and failed.Top down mega-programs are just too cumbersome and too huge to run effecently without massive waste. If we must have them, then we have to pick and choose which ones are really necessary, and let others go by the wayside. There is no way to afford programs for everybody, because human beings are just not not efficent or honest enough to run something that huge without massive waste.

dogma wrote:Sure, by acting as a political block in order to ensure that entitlements exist. Unless you're trying to argue that isn't the same as entering into a contract for your labor, which I suppose you could, but it would be stretch.

How would it "be a stretch" to distinguish between agreed-for contracts and political voting blocs?

The only reason to have a government system is when the private system is incapable of sastisfying the need. People vote to raise taxes or increase regulation not because they are bearing the full burden, but because they expect others to bear the burden. If they were willing to bear the full burden of the intrusion, then there would be a private service to provide the service at the intrusion.

In the health care context: if national health care (full services to everyone who wants them) costs $1 trillion per year, and the cost were distributed equally, every person would be responsible for $3,000/year. However, if every person were willing to pay $3,000 per year, then some hospital (or insurer) would surely spring up and charge everyone $3,000 per year, but provide 'free' health care to everyone.

This is not the case, either in the distribution or in the demand.

The case in the health care problem is you have a lot of people who think that their health care expenses will decrease because the burden of providing healthcare will be more burdensome on the "wealthy" (the standard of which is subjective). There are also people who sympathize with these free riders.

Contracts between an employee and employer are a bargained-for-exchange. Political voting blocs are a majority forcing their will on a minority, and often at the expense of the minority. The two couldn't be farther apart.

Brushfire wrote:

This is wrong. The US healthcare system costs more per capita than any other system on Earth, by a factor of almost 2. The amount of waste in the system is incredible.

You don't go far enough. The amount of waste is symptomatic throughout all US government programs. Too many agencies competing for money and resources for thier priorities. The Pentagon cannot account for the billions of dollars missing in rebuilding Iraq. Medicare is rife with fraud abuse. If you want to save what we have for the time being, the military budget is the best available candidate for immediate cuts. Wouldn't hurt to cut foreign aid too. You cannot have guns and butter. LBJ tried to pay for both Vietnam and create the Great Society, and failed.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, under Obamacare $500BN was taken from the Medicare budget for his new proposals.

sebster replied:
You keep saying this, but it isn't true. Obama's plan has projected that efficiencies in the reforms they putting in place will create $500 billion in savings. The CBO agrees with this.

Oh please. The best laid plans of mice and men. You really think Obama, who has no experince in finance, or any of his chosen staff who came up with this, really understand how to make a national health program for 300 million run efficently without the waste or fraud abuse? It's all therotical until the rubber hits the road. Bush's adminstration thought the Iraqi war would pay for itself with oil, and we saw how well that turned out. US government programs running over budget and being wasteful is a well established historical rubric. The few rare exceptions, if any, only prove the rule. I'm not merely picking on Obama--Many presidents before him had the same goals and failed.Top down mega-programs are just too cumbersome and too huge to run effecently without massive waste. If we must have them, then we have to pick and choose which ones are really necessary, and let others go by the wayside. There is no way to afford programs for everybody, because human beings are just not not efficent or honest enough to run something that huge without massive waste.

Evidently before the plan we couldn't find $500BN in savings, but after the plan we mysteriously can, with such confidence we'll just go ahead and cut that budget. Nuts.

ShumaGorath wrote: Check out the Niel Gaimen or Osama threads for some nice perspective on how we live in a nation of fething manchildren.

Speaking of manchildren it sounds like a certain someone is having a temper tantrum.

In all seriousness I don't think the federal government should be in charge of this, they should let the states take care of it.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Check out the Niel Gaimen or Osama threads for some nice perspective on how we live in a nation of fething manchildren.

Speaking of manchildren it sounds like a certain someone is having a temper tantrum.

In all seriousness I don't think the federal government should be in charge of this, they should let the states take care of it.

If they were capable they would of done it. They aren't and they never would.

biccat wrote:
How would it "be a stretch" to distinguish between agreed-for contracts and political voting blocs?

You've also agreed to a contract in the case of the voting bloc by virtue of maintaining your citizenship, which you can renounce at any time.

biccat wrote:
The only reason to have a government system is when the private system is incapable of sastisfying the need.

Well, there's also the fact that any sufficiently powerful body (where sufficiency is determined by the relative power of others in the same relevant region) will function as a government in the absence of a formal one, even if it doesn't claim to do so. Government does not have to be by consent.

I think you're making to hard a distinction between the public and the private. Things like property rights, exchange conventions, and really even the concept of privacy are all social conventions and therefore necessarily dependent on what I imagine you would describe as public (or at the very least civil) agreement.

biccat wrote:
People vote to raise taxes or increase regulation not because they are bearing the full burden, but because they expect others to bear the burden. If they were willing to bear the full burden of the intrusion, then there would be a private service to provide the service at the intrusion.

No, not necessarily. You're presuming that your own preferences are mirrored in all possible humans, which is wrong.

Incidentally, what you're describing is also the rationale for purchasing insurance, which is a product of the private sphere, so clearly the notion that bearing partial burdens is not unique to determinations of the state, which further supports the idea that the willingness to bear the full burden is not unique to the private sector.

biccat wrote:
In the health care context: if national health care (full services to everyone who wants them) costs $1 trillion per year, and the cost were distributed equally, every person would be responsible for $3,000/year. However, if every person were willing to pay $3,000 per year, then some hospital (or insurer) would surely spring up and charge everyone $3,000 per year, but provide 'free' health care to everyone.

Unless that particular cost required universal participation in the healthcare system, in which case on non-governing insurer would be unable to provide the service due to its inability to materially compel people to pay for it.

biccat wrote:
The case in the health care problem is you have a lot of people who think that their health care expenses will decrease because the burden of providing healthcare will be more burdensome on the "wealthy" (the standard of which is subjective). There are also people who sympathize with these free riders.

There are far more factors to examine than that, including issues of cost comparison to those ysytems which exist in other states. It isn't purely a matter of burden being borne by the wealthy, its also a matter of restructuring the way healthcare is provided so as to minimize the overhead incurred by provders, as well as alter the incentive structure they find themselves operating within.

biccat wrote:
Contracts between an employee and employer are a bargained-for-exchange. Political voting blocs are a majority forcing their will on a minority, and often at the expense of the minority. The two couldn't be farther apart.

The problem is that you're assuming two things which are not necessary. The first is that the voting bloc in question is a majority. The second is that the majority necessarily imposes its will on the minority, or alternatively that the minority has no say in the decision making process.

If the majority necessarily imposes its will on the minority, then it would also be correct to say that haves (because in this model being part of a political majority is to have political power) imposes their will on have-nots (in fact many people would make this argument). If that is the case then employment isn't bargained for, but an imposed condition necessitated by existing in a society where there are haves (employers) and have-nots (employees). This is obviously not the case, but the nits also quite obvious that the way you're describing the political process is equally heavy-handed and incorrect.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
How would it "be a stretch" to distinguish between agreed-for contracts and political voting blocs?

You've also agreed to a contract in the case of the voting bloc by virtue of maintaining your citizenship, which you can renounce at any time.

There is a substantial difference between an affirmative and implied contract. Further, the consequences for withdrawing from the social contract are much more far reaching than the consequences for withdrawing from a private contract.

dogma wrote:Well, there's also the fact that any sufficiently powerful body (where sufficiency is determined by the relative power of others in the same relevant region) will function as a government in the absence of a formal one, even if it doesn't claim to do so. Government does not have to be by consent.

Yes, it does. Government is always by consent (by some portion of the population). Even tyrannies function by consent of those they rule over.

dogma wrote:I think you're making to hard a distinction between the public and the private. Things like property rights, exchange conventions, and really even the concept of privacy are all social conventions and therefore necessarily dependent on what I imagine you would describe as public (or at the very least civil) agreement.

I have a good article (somewhere) discussing the idea of private property and government, and how government arose as a response to private property, not vice versa. It's a good read, and quite an interesting concept.

dogma wrote:No, not necessarily. You're presuming that your own preferences are mirrored in all possible humans, which is wrong.

No, what I'm presuming is that people are rational actors (one of the basis for economics). A person will always act in his or her own rational self interest.

dogma wrote:Incidentally, what you're describing is also the rationale for purchasing insurance, which is a product of the private sphere, so clearly the notion that bearing partial burdens is not unique to determinations of the state, which further supports the idea that the willingness to bear the full burden is not unique to the private sector.

Those who purchase insurance do bear the full burden of the expense for their medical value. Insurance companies don't tolerate free riders, they assess premiums based on the risk of coverage * amount insured. In contrast, the government tolerates free riders, and loves them as a voting bloc.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:In the health care context: if national health care (full services to everyone who wants them) costs $1 trillion per year, and the cost were distributed equally, every person would be responsible for $3,000/year. However, if every person were willing to pay $3,000 per year, then some hospital (or insurer) would surely spring up and charge everyone $3,000 per year, but provide 'free' health care to everyone.

Unless that particular cost required universal participation in the healthcare system, in which case on non-governing insurer would be unable to provide the service due to its inability to materially compel people to pay for it.

Well, yes, if you include a government restriction, you distort the market. Which is the problem of free riders, and nationalized anything. (kept my quote in here since it's necessary for understanding the point, IMO)

dogma wrote:There are far more factors to examine than that, including issues of cost comparison to those ysytems which exist in other states. It isn't purely a matter of burden being borne by the wealthy, its also a matter of restructuring the way healthcare is provided so as to minimize the overhead incurred by provders, as well as alter the incentive structure they find themselves operating within.

Private markets restructure themselves to provide the best services at the best rate. Competition (where it is fairly allowed to flourish) ensures that inefficient businesses work themselves out of the system. The government doesn't have this driving force, and therefore has no incentive to minimize costs, fraud, and eliminate free riders.

dogma wrote:The problem is that you're assuming two things which are not necessary. The first is that the voting bloc in question is a majority. The second is that the majority necessarily imposes its will on the minority, or alternatively that the minority has no say in the decision making process.

If the voting bloc is going to effect change, they either have to have a majority or force some other minority to accept their position (which adds them to the voting bloc for that issue) to create a meaningful change.

And this does mean that the minority would have no say in the decision making process, and will have the majority's position imposed on them.

dogma wrote:If the majority necessarily imposes its will on the minority, then it would also be correct to say that haves (because in this model being part of a political majority is to have political power) imposes their will on have-nots (in fact many people would make this argument). If that is the case then employment isn't bargained for, but an imposed condition necessitated by existing in a society where there are haves (employers) and have-nots (employees). This is obviously not the case, but the nits also quite obvious that the way you're describing the political process is equally heavy-handed and incorrect.

What? That doesn't even make sense.

Glad to hear they're gonna cut medicare and social security. Sure, my family will take a bit of a hit because of it, but at least that also means we'll hopefully pay less in medicare/SS payments.

Both medicare and SS, while good ideas, are so poorly executed as to be basically a burning pile in which we throw money hoping it'll eventually stop burning.

Melissia wrote:Glad to hear they're gonna cut medicare and social security. Sure, my family will take a bit of a hit because of it, but at least that also means we'll hopefully pay less in medicare/SS payments.

Both medicare and SS, while good ideas, are so poorly executed as to be basically a burning pile in which we throw money hoping it'll eventually stop burning.

Yet you're for universal healtchare and that right?

biccat wrote:Even tyrannies function by consent of those they rule over.

You know, despite what you might have been lead to believe, coercion is not the same as consent. Hopefully you don't use the same logic for your future (or present if applicable) lover, for his/her sake...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Yet you're for universal healtchare and that right?

I'm for them done intelligently.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Even tyrannies function by consent of those they rule over.

You know, despite what you might have been lead to believe, coercion is not the same as consent. Hopefully you don't use the same logic for your future (or present if applicable) lover, for his/her sake...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Yet you're for universal healtchare and that right?

I'm for them done intelligently.

Translation you want them but don't want to pay for them. got it.

I know it's hard for you, but do try to not be so much of a dick and make such nonsensical assumptions.

Our current private health care system is horrendously inefficient. It does not have to be. I am not saying it is private health care and therefor inefficient, I'm saying it is inefficient AND it is private health care . Private health care, with proper regulation (fat chance that's going to happen and stick), can work efficiently. But not as we have it right now. Public health care can also be either efficient or inefficient depending on design. What little we have of public health care, IE medicare and medicaid, is also inefficient.

Melissia wrote:I know it's hard for you, but do try to not be so much of a dick and make such nonsensical assumptions.

Our current health care system is horrendously inefficient. It does not have to be.

And you're going to make it efficient under universal healthcare how?

Please cite an example of efficient federal government in the last 100 years.

Frazzled wrote:Please cite an example of efficient federal government in the last 100 years.

Please cite an example of an efficient private health care system in the last 100 years.

Oh wait that's right... there is none in the entirety of human history. Humans in general are inefficient. But that also means there's room for improvement no matter which system you use. When I said "intelligently done" I simply meant that-- one that is improved over our current system, which is woefully inefficient.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Check out the Niel Gaimen or Osama threads for some nice perspective on how we live in a nation of fething manchildren.

Speaking of manchildren it sounds like a certain someone is having a temper tantrum.

In all seriousness I don't think the federal government should be in charge of this, they should let the states take care of it.

If they were capable they would of done it. They aren't and they never would.

That's like saying that if the federal overnment was capable they would have done it. Yet we see them trying to do it.

People complain about the federal government not being in touch with the people they represent so its a fantastic idea to put a social medicine system in their hands. I also fail to see how it is possible for the federal government to implement a social medicine program compared to a state being able to, the federals will need a lot of tax money to help a lot of people. A state will need less tax money to help less people and have a better idea about their need for the program as compared to a federal system.

I for one personally hope that those with the social medicine insurance do have to wait four hours in the emergency room, especially those who don't pay into it. Seriously, why can't we just tax everyone instead of giving tax cuts to everyone in varying degrees? Donations, you made those out of goodwill so why should you get your money back? Children, those are your own fault if you didn't invest into rubberized goods.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Please cite an example of efficient federal government in the last 100 years.

Please cite an example of an efficient private health care system in the last 100 years.

Oh wait that's right... there is none in the entirety of human history. Humans in general are inefficient. But that also means there's room for improvement no matter which system you use. When I said "intelligently done" I simply meant that-- one that is improved over our current system, which is woefully inefficient.

Medicare Advantage. It filled the gaps of Medicare at less cost then said Medicare. Of course it was specifically targetted for killing by your man Obama.


Your own argument doesn't work. You just said everything is inefficient. So under the Melissia rule there can be no universal healthcare, just like you'd like to kill Medicare and SS.

The federal government as a whole is inefficient and they sometimes have multiple organizations doing the same or similar things.

Thanks to the Patriot Act my dad had to explain where a $30,000 pay check came from... he works for MSC(Military Sealift Command) which is part of the Department of Defense. The government asked him where he got the paycheck from despite the fact that it came from them.