Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 23:00, Chambers wrote:
>> To use your lifeboat analogy:
>> We are currently in a lifeboat built for 6 people. There are 4 people
>> who can't get in the lifeboat because its full.
>> The Federal Government wants to build a bigger lifeboat, so we can hold
>> those 4 people. This will cost everyone involved a small sum.
>> The private insurance companies, who build lifeboats for a living, don't
>> want the Government to build a lifeboat. They want to wait for those 4
>> people to be able to afford another lifeboat on their own, else just let
>> them drown.
> 
>     Yes, but it's in the interest of the people who build lifeboats to 
> artificially restrict the size of the lifeboats, and inflate prices.
> 

Personally, I'm more interested in the lives of the four people drowning 
than the pockets of the lifeboat builders.  Let them compete fairly, 
sure, but if we have a chance to build a bigger boat, we should go for it.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
>>>> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.
>>>
>>> Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But
>>> that's a minor point.
>>
>> Oh my god! Are you f**king kidding me?!
> 
>     That doesn't actually constitute an argument. It certainly doesn't 
> address anything I said.

It addresses the inanity of what you said. You don't even think the 
middle class pays for this shit.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?
> 
> When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need 
> employees, are you going to give them health care?  If so, good for you.

What if I instead allowed him to work overtime, put out a tip jar, or 
sleep in the storage closet so that he could provide for his own 
health-care? That wouldn't do, would it?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> 
> Where have you *been* for the last decade?  Our civil liberties have 
> already been shredded,

No shit, huh? So that's how government works? By seizing power and then 
using that power to seize more power?

> and Obama is trying to give something back to us. 
>  I say, let him.

At the expense of our progeny.

It's you who don't get the argument, because to a person like yourself, 
the corporations are always "they" and the government, the giant entity 
which consistently operates at a profit to its members and a loss to its 
shareholders, is always "we."

WE need to print more money.
WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
WE need to control industry.

What the statist doesn't understand is that, with one tiny shift, you're 
not in the WE anymore.

> UHC is a much more worthy expense than, say, someone's 
> pet war half the world away (plus, it has the added bonus of increasing 
> quality of life, which has a corresponding effect on productivity, in 
> the end benefiting our economy).

And having ceded 1/6 of our means to the government, what makes you so 
certain they'll continue to use those means for "worthy expenses"?

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 08/28/09 08:10, Shay wrote:
>> That doesn't actually constitute an argument. It certainly doesn't
>> address anything I said.
>
> It addresses the inanity of what you said. You don't even think the
> middle class pays for this shit.

	You're not exactly supporting what you're saying...

	(Not that I have a problem with the middle class paying for it, BTW).

-- 
Is Disney World the only people trap operated by a mouse?

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>> and Obama is trying to give something back to us.  I say, let him.
> 
> At the expense of our progeny.

One of the reasons for healthcare reform is to try to control the 
spiralling costs of healthcare.  If we *don't* do anything now, then our 
progeny are screwed.  If, on the other hand, we can successfully reform 
healthcare, then our progeny might be able to afford it themselves.

> It's you who don't get the argument, because to a person like yourself, 
> the corporations are always "they" and the government, the giant entity 
> which consistently operates at a profit to its members and a loss to its 
> shareholders, is always "we."

You're confusing me with someone else.  In fact, I'm one of the few 
people I know who consistently defends corporations and their actions.

Most corporations aren't any more evil than most people are.

> WE need to print more money.

Over time, we actually do.

> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.

Not necessarily, however it's a fact that right now taxes are quite low 
(compared to historic levels).  At one point in the US, the tax rate was 
closer to 60%.

> WE need to control industry.

Only when industry has demonstrated irresponsibility that threatens the 
welfare (physical or otherwise) of those around them, and has shown 
themselves unable or unwilling to control themselves.

> What the statist doesn't understand is that, with one tiny shift, you're 
> not in the WE anymore.

The only way I won't be in the "we" anymore is if the US declares I'm 
not a citizen.

"We" is not the ruling majority.
"We" is everyone involved; that is, ALL citizens of the US.

>> UHC is a much more worthy expense than, say, someone's pet war half 
>> the world away (plus, it has the added bonus of increasing quality of 
>> life, which has a corresponding effect on productivity, in the end 
>> benefiting our economy).
> 
> And having ceded 1/6 of our means to the government, what makes you so 
> certain they'll continue to use those means for "worthy expenses"?

Absolutely nothing.  That's why I'm going to continue to watch 
government over the years, instead of blindly trusting them.  However, 
that's not going to stop me from supporting good programs that can help 
people.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> the corporations are always "they" and the government, the giant entity 
> which consistently operates at a profit to its members and a loss to its 
> shareholders, is always "we."
> 
> WE need to print more money.

The government isn't the one that controls the money supply.

Look at your dollar bill. Whose name is on it? Surprise! A private corporation!

> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
> WE need to control industry.

If we controlled the banking system, that would probably be a good idea.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:18:04 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?
>> 
>> When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need
>> employees, are you going to give them health care?  If so, good for
>> you.
> 
> What if I instead allowed him to work overtime, put out a tip jar, or
> sleep in the storage closet so that he could provide for his own
> health-care? That wouldn't do, would it?

No, because the cost of health care is high enough that at minimum wage, 
you'd never actually earn enough to afford it.

Plus if he's working overtime to make the money to afford it, and gets 
sick, he needs to take time off (would you give him paid time off?) to go 
to the doctor.

Would you give him paid time off to do preventative health tasks?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> WE need to to take more from the tax-payers.
>> WE need to control industry.
> 
> If we controlled the banking system, that would probably be a good idea.
> 

Replace WE with GWB and imagine where you might be in a few years. If 
GWB controlled the banking system ...

Bet you don't like the sound of that.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 
> Absolutely nothing.  That's why I'm going to continue to watch 
> government over the years, instead of blindly trusting them.  However, 
> that's not going to stop me from supporting good programs that can help 
> people.

So, when you're watching the government a few years down the road and a 
majority of whom you are not a part does something truly abhorrent with 
the power you've given them, what will you, having ceded much, if not a 
majority, of your financial power and having wiped your ass with the 
Constitution, do about it?

Vote 'em out? Sure, we get to vote people out of Federal office every 
two years, but the framers knew that wasn't enough. Knew that 
redistribution from the few to the many could keep a party (little p) in 
power. Knew that the rights of a minority could be squashed in two 
years. So, they limited the power of the government -- no matter how 
well intentioned that government might be.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message