A health care question...

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: What social contract are you talking about? My point is that representatives don't represent the majority. They don't need to in order to stay elected. They just need to convince an apathetic and short-sighted public that they sufficiently have filled their troughs within a month of election time. And seriously saying "Look all these people are doing it like this." is no justification. If the rest of the globe was throwing people in prison for subversive speech (as it does) I wouldn't be that concerned that our nation isn't rushing to meet them in this goal.    C'mon Pat.  Following the rest of the civilized world in health care reform is hardly the same as following an uncivilized country in suppressing free speech and you know it.  And you know that Teo wasn't suggesting we follow the lowest common denominator in government policy, but rather take a lesson from those countries which are a bit more progressive than we are.

The T wrote: ^We certainly agree on that. But the way people object the change would give the idea that people LOVED it... Come on, some change is better then nothing with the way things were... Let's hope for the best.

How many voters could pass a simple test about how their government works?  Seriously! 

Politics are like, soooooooooooooo boring.  I mean OMG, did you see what Paris was wearing???

What if such people couldn't vote?

What social contract are you talking about? My point is that representatives don't represent the majority. They don't need to in order to stay elected. They just need to convince an apathetic and short-sighted public that they sufficiently have filled their troughs within a month of election time.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: their fair share I love how this phrase gets tossed around as if it's a concrete quantity.What is everyone's "fair share"?  What is fair? What is fair is decided by the American people in free elections where we elect representatives to our republic who make the decisions that we trust are in the best interest for America. Just because you have a representative form of government does not mean that you are represented. It does not even mean that the majority is represented.

Easy Money wrote: How you ask, here's how: 1) elect a socialist president with a funny name. 2) lie to the American people and force legislation down their throat. Thats how!!! You see the problem with a libertarian approach is it is hard to tell the difference between that and an approach that is just plain lazy, inept or naive; either way, you don't have to do much. The Republicans had 8 years to do something about the fact that we were being gouged by the insurance industry, free market politics were a failure because with the insurance industry calling the shots there was no free market. The Republicans were voted out and in come the dems with a more hands on approach, that's what people voted for in the last election, like it or not.

Re Finn's post part the second, I re-read your post to see if i missed the point as you pointed out and realized there was a large part I had underestimated.

The Obama health care plan may not be the best alternative, only time will tell, but nobody else was offering a plan to stop the insurance industry's price gouging. The Republicans had 8 years to address this and they did nothing, this is one of the reasons they were voted out. Now comes the Dems and their usual Fed oriented solution, we have it because no one else stepped up to the plate and actually did something.

Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: their fair share I love how this phrase gets tossed around as if it's a concrete quantity.What is everyone's "fair share"?  What is fair? What is fair is decided by the American people in free elections where we elect representatives to our republic who make the decisions that we trust are in the best interest for America. So by that logic, can I assume the Bush tax cuts were fair?

According to the vote of the American people, yes.

Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: their fair share I love how this phrase gets tossed around as if it's a concrete quantity.What is everyone's "fair share"?  What is fair?

What is fair is decided by the American people in free elections where we elect representatives to our republic who make the decisions that we trust are in the best interest for America.

Finnforest wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: So then there is no positive right to life, only a negative right to life.  I submit that this is no right at all, as it means that only those who can afford it have the absolute right to live.  And obviously you put the right to live behind those of the right to own property.  Because a person's life is not worth infringing the right of someone to horde their property.   Sorry, but that's just wrong man.  No amount of property is worth a person's life.  You obviously don't believe that, or you would sell all you own (besides the bare minimum to keep yourself alive) and use it to save dying people. Or did you mean that no amount of other people's property is worth a life? I notice no one took on Llama's great post, because there's an uncomfortable truth there.  I think for those who feel government should spare almost no expense in taking care of everyone, they are still comfortable owning their own home, their own nice car, and their own savings/retirement accounts.  It's always someone else, making a bit MORE money, who needs to cough it up.  Why wait for the tax rates to rise on the "rich"?  If you truly believe "no amount of property is worth a person's life", powerful words indeed, then are you (not just Doc, but anyone who believes that line he wrote) liquidating everything except the bare essentials and giving it to the "poor" or the sick? Why not?  You could be saving lives that will be lost waiting for government assistance to increase.  You must feel that "some" amount of wealth is worth a person's life.  You are just drawing the line somewhere above where you currently are in the income ladder, presumably.  I know the response will be, "well, because we do things collectively, not individually."  Yup, that's pretty convenient and doesn't really address the fierce ideological element that is being argued.  If excess wealth is to be committed to saving lives, as Doc's line makes pretty clear, then those who believe that should be leading by example.  Because the need is there right now, obviously.  There's nothing stopping that 50% (or whatever number it is) of the ideological world from practicing what they preach.  Think about how much more suffering could be alleviated if the true believers practiced what they preached with their own assets.  LOTS.  But that's not really what this is about.  And for the record, shifting gears, not all of us believe there should be zero safety net.  I personally believe we have some responsibility to the old and infirm for catastrophic care, and to those who've been paying into this messed up system their whole life.  But we need to begin changing the system slowly to something much leaner and more sustainable, which involves lowering taxation so that the young are able to work hard and accumulate their own assets.  Then, some day in the future, people will pay for their own healthcare out of their increased personal assets.  And they can still buy themselves a plan to cover catastrophic costs that might hit their family.  The smaller things will be paid for out of pocket, like any other service, or through a private plan for those who wish to own them.  This system could be completely revamped in a much more efficient way, a way that encourages personal responsibility rather than nanny state-ism.  We're simply choosing the more politically palatable way, even though we don't have the money to pay for these future outlays.  Our heads in the sand, we throw up our arms and let the next generation worry about it.  I'm not saying it would be easy, but I think other reforms within the private system should have been attempted first, and I'll stop there.  And John is right, Repubs had the chance to do this and blew it. They are just as responsible for the mess we're in, perhaps more.  Still, two wrongs don't make a right.  And that's enough typing for me today.

Excellent words, Jim.