Real Conspiracy(healthcare bill) - Page 8

i'm an uninsured american. i prefer to be this way i don't want to dish out 80 bucks a month so that when i get a hospital bill they'll cover 30% of the costs. yeah right i'll just pay it myself, its like requiring me to get a mortgage loan on a house, no thx ill just buy it straight out.
you prolly don't see this, cause you're fucking mother fucker
but gov subsidizes the corn industry and causes corn to go cheaper than shit, and now instead of animals eating grass and shitting on grass and doing that natural process, they get fed corn in animal factory farms cause corn is cheaper. And this causes a whole slew of problems with disease and shit and it drops the price of meat a great deal and so if people can eat meat cheaper at the price of everything else going up, what its going to do is encourage disease on a grand scale, and then the sugar tariffs, they make high fructose corn syrup instead of regular sugar cause its just cheaper, cause the sugar farmers have lobbied the government to put up a tariff so they can compete with foreign sources of sugar. And this increases risks of health problems like diabetes and obesity. So here we have a case of gov increasing risk of disease over a population for profit. You realize every time the government spends money it is increasing the costs of goods. The government is worse than a thief, because it does shit like this to the economy. I'd much rather prefer the government, to just steal money which they already do but you probably disagree and then randomly give 7,500 citizens 100 million dollars, then have 250billion for defense and fucking hire a team of elite gamers and mathematicians to lead the defenses. Instead with its money, it creates laws and enforces them, to raise the price of goods and its borrowed so much money for what i don't even fucking know, they certainly didn't invest money for the future, they invested money, our money for right now helping sick people and then at the same time killing people over on another land mass. you know, i prefer a free market and low prices, than warfare and welfare and thats why i support ron paul, rand paul, peter schiff.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

"A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it." - Frank Lloyd Wright

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases...makes-health-care-virtually-universal

On December 25 2009 11:30 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 25 2009 08:44 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it? when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills. im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way. Your argument is based off of a logical fallacy, slippery slope. You and eastside love this one but it's a fail.

This isn't a slipper slope fallacy. Woodbrave is not saying that this healthcare bill will lead to all these other consequences, like forcing all americans to run every day, merely that the government is never justified in using coercion against its own citizens for the greater good or the good of the individual.

k2o4 what kind of drug policies do you advocate?

i want the government to regulate us more, please. i think we have reached the point that our populace is too stupid to do anything for itself. we should have the government dictate what we learn, believe, wear, eat, and do. i think we should get rid of currency altogether and just work for the glory of the government. the government should also determine what jobs we do and what hours we work. they should also determine what we watch on tv.

by the way k204 is a super nice guy. woodbrave is also really nice. i love the internet fights tho

On December 26 2009 19:04 chris wrote: by the way k204 is a super nice guy. woodbrave is also really nice. i love the internet fights tho

i'm not really nice, i'm just a big pussy unless i'm drunk, fear controls me MAHAHAHAHA

sucks that there is no tort reform, drug companies come out winners, and insurance companies barely get a slap on the wrist, those are the major issues and unfortantely i think 900bill is mostly wasted =[

On December 26 2009 14:11 iamalex wrote: Show nested quote + On December 25 2009 11:30 k2o4 wrote:   On December 25 2009 08:44 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it? when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills. im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way. Your argument is based off of a logical fallacy, slippery slope. You and eastside love this one but it's a fail. This isn't a slipper slope fallacy. Woodbrave is not saying that this healthcare bill will lead to all these other consequences, like forcing all americans to run every day, merely that the government is never justified in using coercion against its own citizens for the greater good or the good of the individual.

I'm going to trust alex here cause I didn't read woodbrave's full posts cause they felt slippery slope so I didn't give them a much credit. But if alex thinks they're not BS then I gotta go back and re-read.

wood, my drug views are that if we're gonna outlaw weed we should outlaw alcohol cause my life experience and watching many pothead friends/family, I think weed is less harmful than alcohol. I'm guessing that's not the answer you want though, cause I think you want me to say that the gov should not regulate us and then you can say that I should not want the gov to regulate our healthcare, etc.

I'm giving you what you want though, cause overall I think the "war on drugs" is a huge waste of money and energy. I personally never do anything other than alcohol, weed and shrooms, and I think coke, heroin, and above are things that should not be done. But overall I feel that abuse of drugs is bad but use in moderation is a-ok.

I think this is where it gets tricky - the idea of universal healthcare leading into everyone paying therefore we should regulate what people do so we all pay less. But my view is that we basically should decide what we pay for and what you do at your own risk. You want to jump out of airplanes? Fine with me. But if you get fucked up, you pay for it. If you want to smoke cigarettes, go for it. But if you get lung cancer, you pay for it. Want to drink alcohol? Sounds good. But if you kill you liver, you pay for it.

My view on "universal healthcare" is that it should be focused on helping people who are making an effort to stay healthy but just get sick. I try to be healthy but sometimes I get the flu. I might end up getting some weird cancer. My son could be born with a crazy disease. Help that stuff. But if I decide I'm going to smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day, when I get lung cancer I need to put money in to get better. I made the choice to get sick.

Does this bill do that? I dunno honestly. But right now we're on the far extreme of "you're on your own" and a move to "we'll help you out" will get us more in the middle imo.

Hopefully that addresses your concerns.

On December 25 2009 08:44 woodbrave1 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it? when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills. im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way.

First off, do you have health care? You are saying you are forced to buy healthcare, but do I'm assuming you already have it. Either via work, your parents, or your own policy. If you don't have it, your situation is that if you get sick you're gonna get hit with a huge bill.

I personally hate "insurance"... it feels like "let's use peoples fear to make money" to me. But I like the idea of universal healthcare. I like the idea that part of the taxes I pay go to covering EVERYONE'S healthcare (falling under the criteria I listed above, ie if you smoke 4 packs a day and get lung cancer, you pay outta pocket). I have no problem with stayign healthy for most of my life but putting some money in to make sure the people who need it get taken care of, and if I do get sick I get covered. Insurance to me feels like I put money into a basket and when I get sick I have to fight to retrieve it. Universal healthcare feels like I put money into a basket that everyone takes from and when I get sick, it's there for me to use.

You're saying the gov is forcing you to buy healthcare for your own good. I think the idea is that we're taking care of the entire country. I'd like US citizenship to be like a membership in a super sexy club. You're a US citizen? Sweet, you never have to worry about healthcare. You pay your membership dues (taxes) and one of the benefits is never having to worry about getting sick. Pretty sweet imo.

So your argument is that if gov is forcing us to buy healthcare for our own good, then it should also force us to stop doing things which are bad for us. I get what you're saying. But I don't believe in restricting free choice, as I said before. And this bill does NOT restrict free choice. And that's why I think your argument is slippery slope. You're saying that I should be this and that because I support this bill. But that's not the case. Cause this bill does not force you to stop drinking. This bill does not force you to stop smoking. You still have free choice, and I think this bill does not go far enough in terms of forcing people who use that free choice to do stupid shit to pay for themselves. But your argument does not apply imo, cause it isn't happening. I can support this bill without forcing people to stop doing things they want to do.

On December 27 2009 04:11 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 25 2009 08:44 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it? when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills. im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way. First off, do you have health care? You are saying you are forced to buy healthcare, but do I'm assuming you already have it. Either via work, your parents, or your own policy. If you don't have it, your situation is that if you get sick you're gonna get hit with a huge bill. I personally hate "insurance"... it feels like "let's use peoples fear to make money" to me. But I like the idea of universal healthcare. I like the idea that part of the taxes I pay go to covering EVERYONE'S healthcare (falling under the criteria I listed above, ie if you smoke 4 packs a day and get lung cancer, you pay outta pocket). I have no problem with stayign healthy for most of my life but putting some money in to make sure the people who need it get taken care of, and if I do get sick I get covered. Insurance to me feels like I put money into a basket and when I get sick I have to fight to retrieve it. Universal healthcare feels like I put money into a basket that everyone takes from and when I get sick, it's there for me to use. You're saying the gov is forcing you to buy healthcare for your own good. I think the idea is that we're taking care of the entire country. I'd like US citizenship to be like a membership in a super sexy club. You're a US citizen? Sweet, you never have to worry about healthcare. You pay your membership dues (taxes) and one of the benefits is never having to worry about getting sick. Pretty sweet imo. So your argument is that if gov is forcing us to buy healthcare for our own good, then it should also force us to stop doing things which are bad for us. I get what you're saying. But I don't believe in restricting free choice, as I said before. And this bill does NOT restrict free choice. And that's why I think your argument is slippery slope. You're saying that I should be this and that because I support this bill. But that's not the case. Cause this bill does not force you to stop drinking. This bill does not force you to stop smoking. You still have free choice, and I think this bill does not go far enough in terms of forcing people who use that free choice to do stupid shit to pay for themselves. But your argument does not apply imo, cause it isn't happening. I can support this bill without forcing people to stop doing things they want to do.

nope, i don't have healthcare, if i get sick i drink some raw vegetable juice til my eyes explode, and then all better. i been sick before, i got a chemically induced pneumonia in vegas with some cool side effects where my body lost the ability to regulate its temperature it felt like, cause i had hot flashes on some parts of my body and at the same time cold flashes on other parts my body.. but i just ate fruit and stayed in bed for 3 days and watch movies/slept and it went away. if i break a bone from snowboarding or some shit, i'll just pay out of pocket. Its not like insurance even really covers the cost of medical care, if you want insurance to cover the cost of medical care the premiums are insane like 250+$ a month for a healthy young person. what i want health insurance for, 80$ a month so they cover 30% the costs if i break a bone/ Fuck that, ill just pay out of pocket. If they give me outrageous prices ill go to a fucking medical school and get senior student to fix my broken bone with his teacher overlooking for their class. Medical school shud be like healthcare for the poor. They can't afford doctors, students need learning experience.

On December 27 2009 04:01 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 26 2009 14:11 iamalex wrote:   On December 25 2009 11:30 k2o4 wrote:   On December 25 2009 08:44 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 25 2009 00:50 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 23:07 woodbrave1 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:07 k2o4 wrote:   On December 24 2009 16:01 into2ndwind wrote: Should government artificially inseminate 1000s of women with genes of successful people that improved society for society's benefit? Warning: Loony Alert! Wtf are you talking about? that has nothing to do with this bill or discussion. And as a metaphor it's totally ridiculous. It does have something to do with this bill and discussion because you think the government should have the right to force me to purchase health insurance and that it is moral they do so. If the government is going to be deciding what is best for me and everyone else in society, then its pretty logical that they start taking people great inventors and have them impregnate 10,000s of women so that there will be more inventors and because inventors improve the lives of everyone. society will become technologically advanced faster. This would make society better, do you disagree? Should the red necks steal nukes and explode them in NYC and California where all the liberals live? I'm using similar logic and reaching a similar RIDICULOUS conclusion. Do you get it? when we talk about gov forcing me to purchase health insurance, you are saying its ok because it will improve my life. So what else can the gov force me to do to improve my life and the lives of others. Perhaps it should force me to run miles everyday. Perhaps the gov should take away world of warcraft and all my vices and addictions. Perhaps it should ban red meat since it increases the risk of cancer. That way it would lower the cost of healthcare as well. If gov banned red meat and forced its citizens to run miles everyday, healthcare costs would go down a great deal. Shouldn't alcohol be banned k2o4? That increases risk of cancer, causes death due to disease and fatal accidents and then theres accidents where people survive and have health care bills. im just saying your position is hugely hypocritical. If gov can force me to purchase health insurance for my own good, then it should ban alcohol for my own good. Its already banned marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and all the good hallucigens, for my own good, so why is alcohol still legal? Are you actively pushing for the ban of alcohol k2o4 like you are for the healthcare bill because alcohol does more harm to the public well being than healthcare bill improves the public well being. If you aren't i'd suggest for a matter of efficiency you switch your focus from healthcare bill to banning of alcohol. You'd do the public alot more good this way. Your argument is based off of a logical fallacy, slippery slope. You and eastside love this one but it's a fail. This isn't a slipper slope fallacy. Woodbrave is not saying that this healthcare bill will lead to all these other consequences, like forcing all americans to run every day, merely that the government is never justified in using coercion against its own citizens for the greater good or the good of the individual. I'm going to trust alex here cause I didn't read woodbrave's full posts cause they felt slippery slope so I didn't give them a much credit. But if alex thinks they're not BS then I gotta go back and re-read. wood, my drug views are that if we're gonna outlaw weed we should outlaw alcohol cause my life experience and watching many pothead friends/family, I think weed is less harmful than alcohol. I'm guessing that's not the answer you want though, cause I think you want me to say that the gov should not regulate us and then you can say that I should not want the gov to regulate our healthcare, etc. I'm giving you what you want though, cause overall I think the "war on drugs" is a huge waste of money and energy. I personally never do anything other than alcohol, weed and shrooms, and I think coke, heroin, and above are things that should not be done. But overall I feel that abuse of drugs is bad but use in moderation is a-ok. I think this is where it gets tricky - the idea of universal healthcare leading into everyone paying therefore we should regulate what people do so we all pay less. But my view is that we basically should decide what we pay for and what you do at your own risk. You want to jump out of airplanes? Fine with me. But if you get fucked up, you pay for it. If you want to smoke cigarettes, go for it. But if you get lung cancer, you pay for it. Want to drink alcohol? Sounds good. But if you kill you liver, you pay for it. My view on "universal healthcare" is that it should be focused on helping people who are making an effort to stay healthy but just get sick. I try to be healthy but sometimes I get the flu. I might end up getting some weird cancer. My son could be born with a crazy disease. Help that stuff. But if I decide I'm going to smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day, when I get lung cancer I need to put money in to get better. I made the choice to get sick. Does this bill do that? I dunno honestly. But right now we're on the far extreme of "you're on your own" and a move to "we'll help you out" will get us more in the middle imo. Hopefully that addresses your concerns.

I'm glad to hear you are against the drug war. Drug use is a vice, banning vice is like stupid. What if a person is 60 years old, cancer has completely infested his body, hes got 2 weeks to live, he wants to do some heroin/coke before he goes. You going to say he should not do these drugs? A good thing about a free society, is its not homogenius people and people can have their own values, and the values of someone else not forced upon them. A person in their life might feel vice is worth more than virtue in a free society he can go down that path, if a democracy or totalitarian government he has to illegally go down that path and you can see people value vice so greatly they don't give a shit about the law and go down that path anyway. With the greatest crime being committed is the law itself, but no one brings the law to justice.

This is why i say a robber is better than the government, a robber won't pretend he owns you or you are his sovereign subject and that you must obey his commands or be met with initiation of force.
But the government will gun your ass down if you disagree or don't obey its commands even if you are committing no crime and they take your property like its theirs. Robber knows its not his property, hes just going to steal it.

********** you wrote this
I think this is where it gets tricky - the idea of universal healthcare leading into everyone paying therefore we should regulate what people do so we all pay less. But my view is that we basically should decide what we pay for and what you do at your own risk. You want to jump out of airplanes? Fine with me. But if you get fucked up, you pay for it. If you want to smoke cigarettes, go for it. But if you get lung cancer, you pay for it. Want to drink alcohol? Sounds good. But if you kill you liver, you pay for it.
*******

If healthcare had freedom, you'd be paying for what you decide to pay for. This bill, since when in history of USA has federal government had the power to force its citizens to buy a product? This is not slippery slope fallacy. Look @ what benjamin franklin said:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money; that will herald the end of the republic.”
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. If the government was restricted by the constitution, it would not be able to create the drug war.

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government.’

‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury.’

‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,
which is always followed by a dictatorship.’

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history, has been about 200 years’

During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage;

too busy to reply properly but just wanted to say sorry for assuming the worst of you right away. I definitely disagree with you on some stuff but I think we have a decent amount of middle ground which we agree on. So I apologize for assuming you were just like eastside and so on.

you guys are dopes

On December 27 2009 14:29 nolan wrote: you guys are dopes

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
your advocacy of democracy ain't cute nolan, its disgusting

On December 27 2009 04:01 k2o4 wrote: I think this is where it gets tricky - the idea of universal healthcare leading into everyone paying therefore we should regulate what people do so we all pay less. But my view is that we basically should decide what we pay for and what you do at your own risk. You want to jump out of airplanes? Fine with me. But if you get fucked up, you pay for it. If you want to smoke cigarettes, go for it. But if you get lung cancer, you pay for it. Want to drink alcohol? Sounds good. But if you kill you liver, you pay for it. My view on "universal healthcare" is that it should be focused on helping people who are making an effort to stay healthy but just get sick. I try to be healthy but sometimes I get the flu. I might end up getting some weird cancer. My son could be born with a crazy disease. Help that stuff. But if I decide I'm going to smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day, when I get lung cancer I need to put money in to get better. I made the choice to get sick. Does this bill do that? I dunno honestly. But right now we're on the far extreme of "you're on your own" and a move to "we'll help you out" will get us more in the middle imo.

It's clear that we must regulate who gets how much health care under a public system. If we don't then all of our money will go to providing the best health-care to those who neglected their health the greatest, the obese, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, etc. We will lose much of our incentive to be healthy. If we aren't going to pay directly for our health-care, and the other Americans will have to foot the bill, it makes it just a little easier to eat a big mac instead of a salad, or have one drink instead of two. All those little decisions will add up over 300 million people and be devastating on the health of America.

It takes an awful lot of regulation to determine who is engaging in behavior too risky or self-destructive to receive government funded healthcare. Does John the skydiving instructor get insurance, while Joe the amateur skydiver have to sky dive at his own risk because it isn't his livelihood? Same idea with cigarettes, should we deny benefits for a waitress who works the smoking section at the restaurant? What about people who overeat or frequent fast-food restaurants often and end up increasing their chances of many terrible diseases, such as heart disease or diabetes? These people all made the choice to expose themselves to things that would negatively effect their health, so they should take a penalty and not be able to mooch off the public health care system.

We can't neglect to think about occupations that are risky and also morally taboo. I can imagine it now, the bible thumping conservative politicians denying Adult film stars health coverage, while allowing other occupations with less risk the benefits of national health care. This is just one of many scenarios, but it gives the bureaucrats tremendous power over which professions we may or may not work if we want health care. This power is capable of destroying not just businesses, but entire industries. This is not power the government should have.

g2g will continue later...

On December 27 2009 12:28 woodbrave1 wrote: About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: ‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.’ ‘A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.’ ‘From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.’ The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years’ During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. from bondage to spiritual faith; 2. from spiritual faith to great courage; 3. from courage to liberty; 4. from liberty to abundance; 5. from abundance to complacency; 6. from complacency to apathy; 7. from apathy to dependence; 8. from dependence back into bondage;

A++++ post imo