Politics
Out of context: Reply #18135
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- ********0
The whole idea of defense kind of comes from the fact that when we became a republic we put the right to use physical force into the governments hands to protect us from foreign or domestic threats and to uphold our sovereignty. And they can use that power as long as they don't fuck with peoples individuals rights.
Now some people see healthcare as a right but it's plain not. http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff…
So I do not see them needing to control it. I can see it as a security issue. But everyone sees security differently. Like people living on the AZ border or a college kid without insurance. Choosing your level of comfort and security at what cost is a personal decision. Not one for some small group of men who are acting on their own self interests tells you you need, or should want or should be a right. Ben Franklin said it best with "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
And lets look at what we have gotten for the temporary securities that FDR started with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sec… . A social secuirty ponzi scheme, medicare, medicaid, over use of insurance by creating wage increase bans which started the employer based healthcares that seperated consumer from demand and real prices and a lot more with the type of thinking that he proposed. I'd think the fallicies of his statements would be clear but a lot of people dont see them. And none of them have worked and have only driven prices and people say its because they did to little when it really is because they did what they did. And before him the jacksonian banking and elitist ruling class shit.
As far as defense I dont think we need as much as we have. And i dont think we need to police the world. I understand the fear people have that makes us keep meddling, all the what ifs and what nots with iran, isreal, terrorist, threats, china, russia and all that. But really we need leaders who dont pander to it for votes. No matter how big our military is if we keep fucking with people they'll fuck with us. At the same time R&D to keep up with other countries so as not be caught off guard im ok with. Nothing wrong with a little fortification so some other crazy country leader doesnt try to police us. Sure it will suck for the soldiers who come home and have no job and the money supply that was funding it stops but thats better than the former.
And really can anyone argue and say that employer based healthcare isnt a disconnect from people paying real prices and finding services. Why would a hospital want to deliver a baby to an uninsured person willing to pay in $5,000 when an insurance company will pay $10,000 or more. Some deductibles cost more than the medicine. There is no market when so many people are insured to control costs. I pay about 100 bucks a month and my employer 200. The plan sucks. I could get better coverage on my own for 200. A plan that isnt wasted on things i would pay out of pocket for. But instead i pay 100, because if i opt out I don't see the money. And than would be out 200 instead of 100 every month. Business provide it either for tax breaks or some moral noble cause. That does more harm than good. Only good it does is give insurance companies more capital to payout larger sums driving prices higher and making people have to get insurance. The higher prices give hospitals more capital to try to achieve more prestige and grow and buy the latest technology which might be .0001 percent better, but XXXXXXX dollars more. Hell a hospital account i work on has valet parking. And the money they spend in advertising is just WOW. But that is just one little big part of the problem, there is so many more smaller ones that help promote other problems. Like lawsuits and regulations. Its definitely a hydra.
Let little suzie die!? If someone doesnt want to let her die I could careless if they create a charity or raise money somehow to give her the care she needs. Thats their right of action. To create a law taking my money to pay for their ego jerkoff i care about. Stealing from the rich or the poor to pay for someone else is not noble or moral. And instead of feeling proud the real feeling should be shame. Can i be empathetic to everyone who has had a hardluck story? Sure. I am all the time. Im not some cold hearted SOB. The difference is I dont say "well something should be done so i don't have to see travesties like this (which is selfish). People should do something and there should be some sort of law to force people to do something" I just simply say "damn that sucks" with an awkward slightly guilt that im happy it wasn't me. I understand life and know its a cruel world. I try to focus on making it better and the positives. Cant cry over spilled milk. I also know that no matter how much legislation or money is thrown away will prevent the kinds of things people dont want to see. Dealing with it is what adults do. Children cry about it and try to create illusions with irrationality that somehow something can be done. So no I'm not advocating any sort of death panel besides the one that we all have which is life and death. Im against the kind of death panel that will come out of over use of healthcare through limited supply and rationing. I also see letting the little suzies of the world deal with the hand nature/circumstance/lifestyle handed them. For one its a positive benefit to the genetic pool and 2 it's responsible conditioning. Right now our system basically rewards a dog for shitting on the carpet and hopes it learns it lesson but humans are no better than dogs. We will take advantage until there is only responsibility to take. It will make people better. It will make them demand less of things like FDR 2nd bill of rights. It's an education that has long been forgotten with americas prosperity. And all by not using any force.
And still people think of the fear and what ifs if a good person really got sick and couldnt get care. There are charities and organization, families. Id suggest, but very wary of the negative consequences, of providing certain tax incentives for those groups that really do believe in charity. Personally I don't believe in it and find it as a really low form of ego boost. Because all charity usually comes down to self interest. You want to feel good so you give what u dont need to someone else. You feel good u could help. Self interest. And i give to charities now and than when i can and it benefits me like taking something off my hands or getting a bum out of my face. I dont feel bubbly about it and just glad i could help like holding a door open for someone. Just general kindness that costs u nothing. It is definitely not higher up on a moral scale than someone not doing something. Its just a question of value and cost.
As far as security with the environment. Im on the fence about man's effects on nature. Im positive we have effect but I dont see any real evidence to what extent. Climate change has happened and will continue to happen with out without man period. Its not about global warmign or cooling. Its just change. Ice cores show very strong changes pre industrial revolution, with and without man. Likely cause by volcanos, meteors, solar flares and lots of unknowns. The idea that man can stop climate change is absurd. However i believe in the three R's and there is nothing wrong with practicing them if at no large cost, but that is a cost for the individual. And its not a secuirty government should be too involved in. I can see smart tax incentives here and there but to smartly choose those will eventually lead to dumb choices and exceeding expansions. So id say might be better to play it safe and stay out of it. Corn ethanol? Hurt middleclass pretty good while not helping. 80s diesal laws set us back quite a bit on that technology and left us off worse. An EPA making sure people arent getting fucked by the illegal dumping of by products i can see and fits in with protection domestically. But still would question the standards and practices of the EPA. Becuase they might enforce such strigent laws of protection they cut off all supply and do more harm than good. There is a bell curve with all regulations and diminishing returns. First they have to accept they dont have unlimited foresight and can stop all accidents and mistakes. So people and voting with dollars would be needed more than just hoping some bureucrat can do the job and to maintain a healthy balance. But inevitably it would likely fail in ruin. Education is the most important thing to keep us free from the tyranny of a uneducated majority in the grey areas of the founding principles.
Theblueone i have a question for you since it seems a lot of your posts against republicans deal with the falling into fascism. And i'll admit i see what your talking about. But i dont see how you dont see that both parties are pushing for a downfall from a republic to a communist/socialist/fascist state. You seem to only recognize the opponents teams failings. Is it because of team bias or a hate for both but more leanings towards the lefts desire for social equalities even if they land them into a hybrid fascist/socialist state depending on party majority? I lean more right since im against the idea of social equality, the only equality i want is in freedom. And see it as most americans are so enamored with equality that they rather be eual in slavery and servitude than freedom. The little details of wether a socialistic society or more of a fascist nation seem to me to be arbitrary. Its a small populace on both telling u what the fuck to do and using force. Just semantics. I can tell you have some education but im not sure if you can think on your own or as tocqueville puts it "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." And dont take it as a backhanded insult. Im quite interested because i like to hear rationale responses to opposing views because (selfishly) it helps me grow and learn more.
But think that addressed the statements I saw. Im not one to just post graphs or soundbytes to argue for me. Theres already too much of that. Albeit it I know i left plenty of ground for back and forth and more specifics and not enough details on where im coming from. But people today are to short on time and want twits they can read backing what they want to think. I already think this will be too long to read and likely people will only pull out a quote without context and judge it without giving it thought but applying the prewritten response they are conditioned to respond with. Or jazx will spam so much it gets buried before anyone actually concerned with discussion of ideas gets to see it. Game recognizes game.