Universal health care- For or against? (independence, welfare, country, issues)

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by LeavingFlorida05

Because they've been brainwashed since they were born. Helping individuals is socialism and it's bad. Helping business is capitalism and it's good. It's the American way!

Ludicrous. I have edited my childish response to yours. I was only trying to have conversation.
Never brainwashed.
But I was raised to work towards self-sufficiency, to try not to be a burden on society. I know that is anathema to those with their eyes on others' wealth, but I still believe I should take care of myself, and help others as I can.
I envy no one their wealth. I empathize with those who fail, and those who are crushed by earnest, and less earnest, socialistic politicians.

Heck, I'm a registered, voting Democrat. I also believe government should get out of the way and off the back of the little guy and allow him to prosper.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Ludicrous. I have edited my childish response to yours. I was only trying to have conversation.
Never brainwashed.
But I was raised to work towards self-sufficiency, to try not to be a burden on society. I know that is anathema to those with their eyes on others' wealth, but I still believe I should take care of myself, and help others as I can.
I envy no one their wealth. I empathize with those who fail, and those who are crushed by earnest, and less earnest, socialistic politicians.

Heck, I'm a registered, voting Democrat. I also believe government should get out of the way and off the back of the little guy and allow him to prosper.

Working towards self-suffiency is a good thing but not always possible in a time when medical treatment can be prohibitively expensive.

The question I still have to ask is where is the consistency in philosophy of government's purpose? Why shouldn't corporations be self sufficient if we require the same of individuals?

I in no way believe healthcare would be an easy program to develop or administer but if it's the right thing we must find a way, and if not I'd like to know why?

[LeavingFlorida05]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Ludicrous. I have edited my childish response to yours. I was only trying to have conversation.
Never brainwashed.

We all are brainwashed. We are Americans. That's what America does.

But I was raised to work towards self-sufficiency, to try not to be a burden on society. I know that is anathema to those with their eyes on others' wealth, but I still believe I should take care of myself, and help others as I can.
I envy no one their wealth. I empathize with those who fail, and those who are crushed by earnest, and less earnest, socialistic politicians.

Neither do I. I have absolutely no problem with corporations making money. Where I have a problem is with corporations influencing government, and they do far more than influence the government.

Heck, I'm a registered, voting Democrat. I also believe government should get out of the way and off the back of the little guy and allow him to prosper.

I believe government should get out of the way, too. We both know that won't happen, though. Why?

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by burdell

Working towards self-suffiency is a good thing but not always possible in a time when medical treatment can be prohibitively expensive.

The question I still have to ask is where is the consistency in philosophy of government's purpose? Why shouldn't corporations be self sufficient if we require the same of individuals?

I in no way believe healthcare would be an easy program to develop or administer but if it's the right thing we must find a way, and if not I'd like to know why?

Wrong because it will be compulsory, and it is unconstitutional, although that reference to the constitution is hardly an impediment to socialism.

Here's a way. Actually, two ways:
If you can only access health care with other folks surrounding you, project your costs, start a group, and enroll those who want to chip in.

If you think a group is the way to garner healthcare for those who are unable to provide for themselves, focus on enrolling members who will willingly pay for services for those who can't.

In either case, I sincerely wish you all success with the endeavor, as long as involvement by members and service professionals is voluntary.

Seems like a very fair approach to me, and I sincerely wish you well with it!

[MikeJaquish]

[quote=LeavingFlorida05;593766]We all are brainwashed. We are Americans. That's what America does.


Neither do I. I have absolutely no problem with corporations making money. Where I have a problem is with corporations influencing government, and they do far more than influence the government.


I believe government should get out of the way, too. We both know that won't happen, though. Why?[/QUOTE]

We have evolved into a nation with our hands out to government.
We look to be governed, and to use government means to resolve slights and problems that we should solve ourselves.

It is an inversion of the framework of the republic, brought about by relentless vote-buying with tax monies. Ben Franklin predicted it.

[LeavingFlorida05]

This nation is not capitalistic. It's corporate socialism. So many people champion business as though it is some sort of saving grace, when business serves it's own interests, not ours. It's ironic. The very thing you champion is also perpetuating the socialism you despise.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Wrong because it will be compulsory, and it is unconstitutional, although that reference to the constitution is hardly an impediment to socialism.

Healthcare would be unconstitutional yet aiding corporations is not? I find that a little hard to believe.

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

If you think a group is the way to garner healthcare for those who are unable to provide for themselves, focus on enrolling members who will willingly pay for services for those who can't.

Then why bail out the airlines if they can't do it for themselves? You've said corporations are first and foremost people. Why are you OK with helping one group of people yet so adamant that a group of sick people should be left to fend for themselves or ONLY by helped those volunteering to pay? We certainly weren't given the choice with the airlines.

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

In either case, I sincerely wish you all success with the endeavor, as long as involvement by members and service professionals is voluntary.

Seems like a very fair approach to me, and I sincerely wish you well with it!

Fair? Seems inconsistent to me. When are we given the opportunity to decide whether we'll agree to help the airline industry or any number of other things the government's involved in? And voting's not an acceptable answer. 9/11 was an emergency and I think helping the airlines industry was the right thing, certainly no time to wait fro a vote. Why is a sudden illness viwed so differently and as something not worthy of government involvement?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

We have evolved into a nation with our hands out to government.
We look to be governed, and to use government means to resolve slights and problems that we should solve ourselves.

Then why are you OK with the government aiding an industry in trouble? Why shouldn't an industry solve their own problems? Why do you hold corporations to a different standard of self-sufficiency than individuals?

[MikeJaquish]

"This nation is not capitalistic. It's corporate socialism. So many people champion business as though it is some sort of saving grace, when business serves it's own interests, not ours. It's ironic. The very thing you champion is also perpetuating the socialism you despise."


So, you'll drop your socialism if I'll drop mine?
Agreed!

Wow, that was easy!

All problems solved, corporate and personal welfare eliminated!

We are heroes!

[LeavingFlorida05]

We'll never be rid of corporate welfare, unfortunately.