US presidential election...

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-23-2008, 02:29 PM
�eceased

Quote:

We must FIX the problem with legislation of healthcare reform, not throw another burden on an inefficient government. Look what happened to public schools ever since the government got involved. Did you know that if you have an injury and go to a hospital, they'll charge you a certain rate to treat you if you pay up front with cash or a credit card. Did you know that they charge many insurance companies, especially Medicare, MORE? Did you know that if you have insurance, hospitals are more likely to perform unnecessary tests since they know the bill isn't on the patient? Did you also know that a hospital is more likely to prescribe drugs to someone covered by insurance, even when they may not be necessary? Again, ripping off health insurance. Health insurance companies pass these charges to the businesses that purchase plans, and the cost finally gets passed to the citizen. There's not enough money for the government to audit the $575-590 billion spent on Medicare each year, and a lot of that cost has been unnecessary.
Healthcare costs have directly increased due to malpractice insurance doctors must have, and that cost is passed to the citizen & health insurance company. All to pay off the patient who accidentally had a clamp left in them after surgery and it had to be removed. So that's a $40 million lawsuit, which is ultimately paid for in the end by the other patients as malpractice insurance increases. It's unfortunate that a doctor screwed up and caused a patient to go through another unnecessary surgery to fix the problem, but excessive lawsuits are just one of many major problems.
Legislation to fix these problems is all that is needed to make health coverage in this country affordable for everyone, including employers. We don't need a universal healthcare plan that will only get a return of 20 cents on the dollar due to inefficiency when there are better alternatives, but lobbyists in Washington are looking out for their interests. Drug, health insurance, and medical companies are the primary lobbyists in Washington, and they're all being very "nice" to politicians to make sure they continue to make money off the current system. They don't mind the idea of government run health insurance. It's easier to rip off a government program than a heavily-audited private company anyway. That's more taxpayer money wasted, and that's not ok with me.

I fully agree (with most of that ^^). There is a huge amount of waste in the UK as well. Sometimes it�s sickening tbh.

We�ve had an exorbitant amount of money recently invested into computerising the NHS nationwide to provide the fastest possible access to adequate health care and information to everyone, yet despite this nothing has been done.
But these problems aren�t because they are government run and thus are destined to fail. It is because the independent governing body over proceedings has failed. And in the cases where that governing body is the government itself, well then it is likely to fail :S

There HAS to be an independent committee whose sole task it is to supervise things like this, with complete transparency. The absence of this means that any health care, whether it be private or not, will eventually collapse. Either through excessive costs or dissatisfaction to the consumer or lack thereof.

And this is the aspect that worries me somewhat. There seems to be some discontent amongst you towards the government as a whole. Believe me people in most countries do. But how the hell did it come to �the lesser of two evils� (as someone put it) to be running for presidency? I mean the government should be at its core an establishment to help everyone in the country to the best of their ability. NOT an establishment to control its populous, with the exception of upholding the laws.

Quote:

Social is a wonderful thing when people go out of their way to help people. Social is a bad thing when government (at least our government) walks into your life, takes a big chunk of your paycheck, wastes 80% of that chunk to cover inefficiency, and does what it wants with the little that remains - with the end result in the hands of health/drug companies bank accounts.

All social issues should be left up to states to decide. Our country was founded for the government to protect the people (military), and provide legislation for laws to govern the country. Social issues should be handled where they are - by local and state governments. There's no need for the government to get involved in local/state affairs. Flawed plans, such a social security (which if you really read into it, is a form of pyramid payment plan, which just happens to be *illegal* in the country), Medicare, Medicaid, No Child Left Behind for education (which sounds wonderful, but is horribly flawed), are further proof that the government can't efficiently handle the problems it tries to tackle. If proper laws, with no loopholes for wealthy people/businesses to bypass, were enacted, we wouldn't need these 'social' programs since there would be plenty of well-paying jobs like there were in the 40's/50's/60's.

QFT

Quote:

Look at it this way..
Is a kid more likely to overspend on an item when he's footing the bill, or his parents are footing the bill?

The kid walks into Best Buy, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, but knows he can't afford it. The sales assistant realizes he's worked hard for months at $10/hr to be able to afford it, and helps him with a more reasonable selection. So, he buys a nice 40" LCD TV for $1800, and skips on the extended warranty, overpriced cables, universal remote, fancy TV stand, etc. He arrives at home with his $2000 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture and feels good about the money he's spent. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

Another kid walks into Best Buy with his parents' credit card, sees the $6000 80" LCD TV, and likes it as well. The sales assistant sees the parents' plastic and pushes for $500 extended warranty, $100 HDMI cables, $400 TV stand, $100 universal remote, etc. The kid makes the purchase, comes home with his $7500 TV after taxes and enjoys a fantastic HD picture. It's 1080p, fully functional, and does exactly what it's supposed to do - display HD TV in all its glory.

I�m sorry, I cringed when you said this! ^^ For me there is a fundamental difference between necessity and luxury which underlines this whole topic. I know you were only trying to make an analogy : )
Necessity should under NO circumstances be refused to anyone. Thusly basic treatments should be available to everyone.
A TV is a luxury, no matter if it�s $6000 or $100.

Quote:

That's how health insurance works from hospitals right now. With socialized healthcare, the government will collect $X from every working person every year, lose Y% of it due to inefficiency, then pay much more than an uninsured would at a hospital visit due to unnecessary procedures/tests/drugs. Don't be fooled - running a hospital is a business, and although there are a lot of honorable doctors out there, there are bottom lines to be made, and government-provided money is a easy target for extortion. The solution isn't socialized healthcare. It's legislation to fix the many problems invovled with healthcare. Legislation is an inexpensive fix, and previous government programs have proven they don't work very well in this country.

Quote:

I think it's important to make a clear distinction between private health insurance and government run health insurance here. Hospitals do not charge private insurance more than an uninsured person, they charge them less. Private insurance companies will not pay for useless tests or unneeded procedures. The insurance companies bargain with the hospitals to get discounts. How else could private insurance ever hope to turn a profit?

You're certainly correct about government insurance though. It's amazing how inefficient things can become when there is no need to worry about making money.

This for me would be a valid reason against a government run universal health care system as it currently stands.

Just to argue the point. It's amazing how efficient things can become when there is a need to worry about making money. (please note this can be taken negatively :) )

But the truth is, as you pointed out in part, it is because there isn�t enough legislation, or simply wrong legislation protecting the patient, doctor and those taxed or ultimately paying for it. If there is enough protection in those three departments then it doesn�t matter if it�s public or private.

I hope I didn�t cause a stir :P I do think I got an answer to my original question though ^^

EDIT: oh holy cow.. Bit too much of a WALLOTEXT :S and I rly don't have time to go through it correcting my sbelink/grammatical mistakes :S
06-23-2008, 06:55 PM
Ughmahedhurtz

Well, I guess this is where you and I just agree to disagree, then. I believe the US system has its flaws but I also believe that onerous government regulation, taxation and corruption is at the root of those flaws. We can argue 'til the cows come home about details and probably agree on a lot of things.

Glad we answered your original question. ;)
06-24-2008, 05:48 AM
�eceased

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=78226 #post78226

Well, I guess this is where you and I just agree to disagree, then. I believe the US system has its flaws but I also believe that onerous government regulation, taxation and corruption is at the root of those flaws. We can argue 'til the cows come home about details and probably agree on a lot of things.

Glad we answered your original question. ;)

I was playing devils advocate a little here, because I wanted to highlight the root of discontent. Many of you seem pretty appalled (as I am too) of the US government's running of medicare. I just wanted to really highlight that it's not so much an even split between private=good, public=bad which I got the impression many of you felt.

Economically a privately run facility/company has to be commercially viable to succeed. The problem there is that cutting too many corners in a area such as healthcare, is in my mind, unethical (this is where legislation to protect consumers or those who would like to be consumers comes in, yet it seems to be often ignored for financial gain).
A government run facility should, I stress should, provide treatment to all, as it has the funds at its disposal to do so. But as you rightly pointed out, incentive and efficiency are often an issue. Again this is where legislation and in both cases an independent assessor is needed (one that can't be bought).

As regards to corruption, I don't understand how so much can take place. I was flabbergasted at the amount of bribes handed out with regards to healthcare alone! Why aren't they held accountable? Why aren't they fined and fired, or even put in jail.
Soz sometimes I feel I should go into politics just so i can go sort out the crap that goes on.. save the counrty a couple of billion whilst I'm at it! :P

�
06-24-2008, 08:26 AM
-silencer-

Quote:

Originally Posted by '�eceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=78383#post 78383

Economically a privately run facility/company has to be commercially viable to succeed. The problem there is that cutting too many corners in a area such as healthcare, is in my mind, unethical (this is where legislation to protect consumers or those who would like to be consumers comes in, yet it seems to be often ignored for financial gain).
A government run facility should, I stress should, provide treatment to all, as it has the funds at its disposal to do so. But as you rightly pointed out, incentive and efficiency are often an issue. Again this is where legislation and in both cases an independent assessor is needed (one that can't be bought).

As regards to corruption, I don't understand how so much can take place. I was flabbergasted at the amount of bribes handed out with regards to healthcare alone! Why aren't they held accountable? Why aren't they fined and fired, or even put in jail.
Soz sometimes I feel I should go into politics just so i can go sort out the crap that goes on.. save the counrty a couple of billion whilst I'm at it! :P

�

Government-run facilities suck. Those are military and VA hospitals, which I've been to many times. They're a waste of money because they aren't run efficiently like a business, and provide sub-standard care using the cheapest medical products they can find in an effort to cut corners. I'm all with Ughmahedhurtz on these topics. The more the government is involved, the more money is wasted. The government should only be involved in providing sufficient laws to create a level playing field in all walks of life. It worked in the past, before government waste and bad laws let things get out of control. You don't need government-run healthcare for healthcare to be affordable.

My reference above to the TV sale still applies as a valid analogy. The point isn't about necessity versus luxury; it's about unnecessary expenditures versus what will do the job correctly based on who's paying the bill. Hospitals will nickel and dime every unncessary test and drug when the government (Medicare) is paying the bill. They *won't* do this if you are paying the bill and seem concerned about the cost vs reward for these tests/drugs.

With regards to corruption, that's what happens when both major political parties are represented by a majority of corrupt politicians. The fact that so many voters are clueless and tend to only vote for the names they recognize doesn't help solve the problem. Far too many people don't understand that there are much better choices than the two parties/candidates that spend the most money in elections. I'm not saying Ralph Nader and the Green Party is the answer either. As crazy as it sounds, Jesse Ventura would make a better president than McCain and Obama. Ventura is well aware of the political corruption and has a no-bullshit attitude toward people who aren't doing the right thing. That's why he's dropped party affiliation and is now an Independent. Lou Dobbs is another name that comes to mind of someone who could help the country. Unfortunately, he's making far too much money now to take a pay cut and run for the highest office.
06-30-2008, 06:32 AM
Occam's Razor

Quote:

Originally Posted by '�eceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=78109#post 78109

I hate to throw something else up in the air :P but If those 40-45million people in the US who don�t have health insurance were treated properly (as they deserve), there might be some more overcrowding. These are after all the people that are likely to need it most, and yet they are left behind.

I agree with you, and here's why

Those 40-45 million people in the US who don't have health care insurance would get treated properly (as they deserve) if we would focus on treating LEGAL and VERIFIED NEEDY US Citizens first.
The system is groaning and straining from people Legal and Illegal abusing the system.

The 'Left' wants to 'mother', 'coddle' and take care of the world, but the Dem Ideal is also about 1/4 inch away from the full-blown ideal of Communism.

The Dems can't stand to see one person with a LOT of money, so they demand that, that person "Share the wealth" (Pretty sure I read that in a manifesto someone wrote a long time ago)
The problem with THAT plan is, they don't give a damn WHO it's handed out to. (If they did a background check or something MAYBE just MAYBE it would have some hope of working)
They don't care if this rich person's money went to a family or person that truly needed it, or if it went to some low-life leech, drug-dealer etc.
Ironically also, the Dems make all of these 'social' plans and then raise taxes to pay for them, and it hits the people they think they're helping the hardest.

The Right says, "you can do it, you can make money, this is America"
The Left says, "No you can't, come here, we'll take care of you the rest of your life"

Republicans want a small Government that stays the hell out of people's business.
Democrats want a HUGE Government that takes care of everyone, even those who don't need it.
Almost like a Mother with 'Munchausen's by Proxy Syndrome'

Example: Sad-but-true story. It Was told on NPR (So the Liberals know it's true ;P )

A guy living in New Mexico, he's on Welfare, but he's constantly going across the border and running drugs and making over $2000 a week doing it (unreported of course)
One day his drug deal in Mexico goes bad, he gets shot in the leg.
He drags himself back over the border (that's how NPR described it, I'm sure he drove) goes to the nearest U.S. hospital and gets.......drumroll "FREE HEALTH CARE"
Because he has all his welfare insurance cards etc....even though this guy is bringing in an unreported $2000+ grand a week.

Example 2: True Story

A relative of mine, gets a divorce, moves to a Republican run state with her two kids, she goes on Welfare.
The Republican State says "Hmmmm, let's HELP HER by, giving her a FREE car, and a FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION that way she can get a job and get off Welfare and be financially independant."

She goes to school for FREE, becomes a Registered Nurse, and now, can work ANYWHERE , starting at, at least $23 an hour. (before the education she had the potential to make Minimum Wage at a Walmart)

Which was cheaper for the state? (Giving her a free Car and Free College Tuition, or paying her Welfare for the rest of her life?), do the math.....

Republican Plan: Free Car ($1000-2000), + Two Year Tuition ($2000-$5000?) = Total cost to the State $3000-$7000. She learned a skill and doesn't need Welfare =
TWO YEARS TOTAL Investment for the state, a lifetime of the State not having to support her.

Democrat Plan: $700 a month + $200 food stamps For ONE YEAR = $10,800 ......FOR LIFE = $10,800*30 = $324,000 FOR ONE PERSON, no education provided, she would remain DEPENDANT on the State

Which is better? Doing it the Republican way, or the Democratic way?
The Republican way taught her a skill, got her back on her feet and said "There ya go!, glad to have helped"
The Democratic way would've kept her in Poverty, Reliant on the State, barely scraping by from Month to Month, all the while saying "You poor Dear, we HATE seeing you live like this, we'll try and get those nasty rich people to help you out, in the meantime, here, let's give you just enough foodstamps to survive from month to month, and we'll give you a welfare check that you could never afford an apartment with, but that's OK we have subsidized housing that really really cheap that you can live in, but you'll want to lock your doors at night because it's in a REALLY shitty neighborhood"

Yea, when I was in my 20's I was a hardcore "Establishment Hater"
Hell, I think a good 90% of the time I would just say "Reagan Sucks" just because I was "expected" or "Supposed" to hate the President at that age.....But honestly I had no clue at the time, it was just something you're supposed to do at that age.

A good quote (allegedly from Winston Churchill) "Show me a young man who's a Republican, and I'll show you a man with no Heart. Show me an Old man who's a Democrat and I'll show you a man with no Brains"

Perceptions change with age.

I'm embarrassed now, that I was such an 'automatic Liberal' without ever looking at the facts........
06-30-2008, 11:20 AM
-silencer-

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Occam\'s Razor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81021#post8102 1

Republicans want a small Government that stays the hell out of people's business.
Democrats want a HUGE Government that takes care of everyone, even those who don't need it.

That's what has been said, but both Republicans *and* Democrats have been boosting government bloat for years. Republicans have strayed from their role of small government, and it seems that only Ron Paul has a clue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Occam\'s Razor',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81021#post8102 1

Yea, when I was in my 20's I was a hardcore "Establishment Hater"
Hell, I think a good 90% of the time I would just say "Reagan Sucks" just because I was "expected" or "Supposed" to hate the President at that age.....But honestly I had no clue at the time, it was just something you're supposed to do at that age.
...
I'm embarrassed now, that I was such an 'automatic Liberal' without ever looking at the facts........

I was like that in high school.. pushing for liberal ideals. Once I made it halfway through college and spent enough time hanging with these wannabe pro-change-everything nutbags, most of which didn't even have faint concept of knowledge, I walked away from them. They wanted to rebel and fight against something - they were great at yelling and trying to emulate their parents from the 60's, but they couldn't even answer simple questions about government, world politics, or economy. I really began to understand the years of hard work in college that it takes to become successful in life, and although there are options other than college, it is far from guaranteed. As I used the knowledge gained from years of hard work, I further understood the importance of keeping the government out of people's lives, especially since I see firsthand how the government wastes money. However, continued empty promises from both parties at the cost of the quality of living for the majority of people in the country has me firm in the belief that both parties seek the same goal: Continue their re-election through empty promises to their constituents, and grow their own pockets at any cost.

The "social" differences between the parties - abortion / gay marriage / gun control / etc.. many seem important to some people, but they don't affect *everyone* with as much impact as government involvement, waste of taxed dollars, and corruption at all levels of both major political parties.
06-30-2008, 01:33 PM
bugilt

I have been looking to PBS programs and the real news for political coverage. I stopped watching the main stream media after seeing Paris Hilton every night. I think in this day and age news need to be conveyed at a pace similar to the rate at witch life moves. I don't have 3+ hours a day to read about or watch what congress is wasting time on these days. PBS programs do a great job of making it interesting and informative.

http://therealnews.com/t/

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...74&jumival=165

http://www.pbs.org/

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/
06-30-2008, 01:58 PM
�eceased

Quote:

A good quote (allegedly from Winston Churchill) "Show me a young man who's a Republican, and I'll show you a man with no Heart. Show me an Old man who's a Democrat and I'll show you a man with no Brains"

Even though a truly great quote, it cannot be taken as more then a humorous remark. I am sure there are countless examples of the above, but also countless of the opposite.

While I agree with your second example about how encouragement into education and work is a good thing, I don't see how that has anything to do with being a democrat or republican.. to me that just looks like simple logic and economics 101. It is a pity if that is what's being proposed by the democrats in the state in question. Welfare and benefits are a good thing. But they must be supervised and controlled properly, and restricted to those who truly need it and are unable to do anything about their situation.

I would also like to point out that the free education, car etc are forms of welfare! But, a good example of how this money should be used. People in these situations often are unaware of the best course of action available to them, and by changing the way they are supported one can directly influence their motivation and open up opportunities for them. But again, this is tbh unrelated to political conviction, more a test of common sense.

Quote:

The 'Left' wants to 'mother', 'coddle' and take care of the world, but the Dem Ideal is also about 1/4 inch away from the full-blown ideal of Communism.

The Dems can't stand to see one person with a LOT of money, so they demand that, that person "Share the wealth" (Pretty sure I read that in a manifesto someone wrote a long time ago)

>.< when did taking care of the world become a bad thing, or sharing for that matter :P (soz just trying to ruffle some feathers here :P )

I guess it all comes down to what taxation is there for. It is in essence to take from those able to pay, to supply services to everyone (in principle.. in practice, as pointed out, it doesn't always work). This is the case regardless of political party.

In the UK we generally have relatively low income tax (one of the lowest in Europe - before the expansion) and despite myself being in the highest tax bracket already, I am an avid Liberal Democrat supporter (even more left then the democrats in the US) who would in turn increase the amount of tax I pay.
However! they, out of all the political parties in the UK have the best economic policy for the UK. I know to some of you that might sound like a contradiction in terms, but it is true nonetheless. And whilst much of it is directed at aiding those in need, there is huge emphasis on reforming the welfare system in the UK (as we too have some of the problems that appear in the US) as well as reducing the money that goes to waste.
an additional plus for the Liberal Democrats in the UK is that they are the only party that want to see changes made to the way politicians etc are held accountable when they are in breach of laws. Currently these things are swept under the carpet when it involves politicians :S

And just to make a point. This isn't change for the sake of change. It is change to correct injustices within the governmental system as a whole.

The Lib Dems additionally are among the few political parties that want to see a return to free university level education to underprivileged people - based on ability to pay.
To me the example you gave and the strategy proposed by the liberal democrats in this country are one and the same.. so is it republican or democrat? Or is it just basic common sense?

Quote:

The Dems can't stand to see one person with a LOT of money, so they demand that, that person "Share the wealth" (Pretty sure I read that in a manifesto someone wrote a long time ago)
The problem with THAT plan is, they don't give a damn WHO it's handed out to. (If they did a background check or something MAYBE just MAYBE it would have some hope of working)
They don't care if this rich person's money went to a family or person that truly needed it, or if it went to some low-life leech, drug-dealer etc.
Ironically also, the Dems make all of these 'social' plans and then raise taxes to pay for them, and it hits the people they think they're helping the hardest.

hmm.. meah.. Ok. take me, for a second. I have no objection to people succeeding in life, making money etc. Sure I may be jealous of millionaires. But that's just human nature. It makes me want to do better (even though for me money isn't necessarily the main motivation).
The need to tax those who do well, however immoral that may sound to people (punishing those who do well - sounds nearly counter-intuitive), is required as it is the only way to insure a functioning society. You feed and educate the poor in order to facilitate growth and prosperity, which in turn means more money for the rich.
I agree over-taxation is a problem, especially when most of that money is being wasted, but it is still necessary. (not over-taxation.. just taxation :P )

Quote:

Republicans want a small Government that stays the hell out of people's business.
Democrats want a HUGE Government that takes care of everyone, even those who don't need it.

If that were true, then:
Republican: everyone would be left to fend for themselves, even those unable to (Ie they suffer and possibly die)
Democrat: If the rich don't need it, yet everyone including them receive from it, would they also not benefit from this?

again, I don't actually believe those things, I am just providing the equally stereotyping polar opposite.

You see, that's the problem with stereotyping. There is always one side that looks idealistic and one that doesn't. I am sure you have heard the other, "Republicans only care about their pockets!!.. Are evil!!" yadayada etcetc..

I hate it! all of it!! no matter who it's directed at!

A vast majority of the things you mentioned are not down to political failings by either party. They are simply failings. Interdepartmental and intradepartmental, within society as a whole, usually caused by someone not doing their job properly or down to maliciousness.
Governmental and political failings are among those, but the ideals of a party aren�t to blame (unless it�s a party�s policy to fail.. but then failing would mean an actual success as they achieved what they set out to do. So in actual fact the best party to have in power is one that wants to fail, as when they eventually fail at failing, they ultimately do well by their peers � or just simply one that wants to succeed :P).
Most of these failings are down to the individuals who at present make up the party in question, and how they are dealt with when they screw up.
I mentioned earlier, supervision over the departments of a government should be a priority to make sure that any government, whether far right or far left, works within the boundaries of good economic policy, as well as human and civil / international policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by '-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81161#post81161

I was like that in high school.. pushing for liberal ideals. Once I made it halfway through college and spent enough time hanging with these wannabe pro-change-everything nutbags, most of which didn't even have faint concept of knowledge, I walked away from them. They wanted to rebel and fight against something - they were great at yelling and trying to emulate their parents from the 60's, but they couldn't even answer simple questions about government, world politics, or economy.

By pro-change-everything nutbags are we talking antiestablishmentarianists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by '-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81161#post81161

I really began to understand the years of hard work in college that it takes to become successful in life, and although there are options other than college, it is far from guaranteed. As I used the knowledge gained from years of hard work, I further understood the importance of keeping the government out of people's lives, especially since I see firsthand how the government wastes money. However, continued empty promises from both parties at the cost of the quality of living for the majority of people in the country has me firm in the belief that both parties seek the same goal: Continue their re-election through empty promises to their constituents, and grow their own pockets at any cost.

Can�t argue with that generally, but I keep thinking to myself that they shouldn�t be allowed to waste money without repercussions (sorry to keep mentioning it)

Quote:

Originally Posted by '-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=81161#post81161

The "social" differences between the parties - abortion / gay marriage / gun control / etc.. many seem important to some people, but they don't affect *everyone* with as much impact as government involvement, waste of taxed dollars, and corruption at all levels of both major political parties.

QFT - unfortunately our society is driven by social aspects of all kinds. Whether it be how a politician looks, down to what some doped up celebrity did on a weekend..
My point is, so much time and money are wasted, as you say, on debate over abortion/gay marriage etcetc when ultimately the foundation for all those is and always has been human and civil rights.
Thus rendering most debate over these topics as utterly pointless. Unless they are to facilitate education and understanding about them.
Unfortunately most debate about them is highly superficial :S

�

EDIT: again in a rush, so no time to check for spelling/grammatical mistakes :S
06-30-2008, 02:31 PM
�eceased

EDIT2:

soz i forgot to address your other point :S

Quote:

Those 40-45 million people in the US who don't have health care insurance would get treated properly (as they deserve) if we would focus on treating LEGAL and VERIFIED NEEDY US Citizens first.
The system is groaning and straining from people Legal and Illegal abusing the system.

The 'Left' wants to 'mother', 'coddle' and take care of the world, but the Dem Ideal is also about 1/4 inch away from the full-blown ideal of Communism.

People abusing the system is not something democrats condone by any means.

There is an argument for treatment of all, again under the basis for human rights, and equality within that, to supply emergency treatment for everyone regardless of legality, nationality, race, gender or financial situation, but only when denial of said treatments would lead to that persons death or severe and irreparable injury.

EDIT3:

Quick question, that I'm sure some of you will scream at ^^

you mentioned this guy in new mexico
(and the problem there by the way wasn't the democrats but the boarder police/normal police not enforcing the law, and the organization coordination welfare handouts not investigating this applicant fully)

There is a proposition here in the UK (by the lib dems) to legalise drugs.. all drugs!

Now I know the thought of it will instil images of people falling all over the place, coked out of their brains, abusing drugs etc everywhere you go. Gangs raining supreme etc etc

But think about it for a second :)

If drugs are legal.. what happens to all the drug gangs? (estimated to make up around 48% of crime in the UK).. they have no drugs to smuggle, to make money off..
If the drug addicts that would normally steal assault people (making up a further 26% of crime in the UK) in order to get drugs illegally, were now able to get them from the government (controlled of course! under tight restrictions depending on circumstance, not just free handouts).. and entered into drug rehabilitation programs as a prerequisite to receiving drugs.
What if 2 out of every 5 people in jail in the UK, who is involved in drugs, could have been working in the drugs business, legally, paying tax. (btw the reason it's only 2 out of 5 (ie 40%) vs over 70% of crime in Britain is related to jail sentence)

Translate this scenario over to the US.

What if import and export of drugs were taxable and legal. would it not free up a huge proportion of the law enforcement to concentrate on more serious crime.
would it not improve trade, thus revenue.
would it not also provide tax revenue.

what is the best way to control criminals? make them work for you.. for the better of society instead of against it.
Yes drugs are a horrible thing, but to restrict their flow successfully, I would much rather they be in the hands of a competent government, then in the hands of a competent drugs lord.
It's a consumer world, and unfortunately people also consume drugs. They will be consumed regardless of legality. Make them legal and you remove a highly volatile and costly aspect of them.. right? :P

Just a quick point! :) I'm not saying all illegal activity by people so far, should go unpunished and that it should be them doing the legal stuff. Criminals should be punished/rehabilitated.
The drugs trade needs replacing and should be run by conscientious people.

EDIT4: (i have to stop thinking :S ) I just wanted to add something before I'm flamed for something I didn't mean. I have mentioned the police etc a few times, with regards to failing on certain aspects of law enforcement etc. But I wish to make it absolutely clear that I do not by any means want to say that the police are incompetent. Simply that within the police force there are often people in higher positions who are not up to the task, and thus hinder proper law enforcement. Government policy can impact this to a degree, especially when looking at financing the police and other security services. These are some aspects where development into a more efficient system are also necessary.
06-30-2008, 05:12 PM
Occam's Razor

I completely agree on the idea of legalizing ALL drugs.
This is a serious post, not a tongue-in-cheek, or sarcastic post.

1. Legal Drugs means no Illegal Drug Pushers/Gangs etc.
2. Legal Drugs with a TAX, like Alcohol and Tobacco = Big Revenue
3. Why should ANY Government tell me what I can and can't Smoke/Drink/Ingest and Inject (This would get approved a LOT quicker if Congress had Term Limits, it would weed out the 100 year old congressmen)
4. Would save Millions, if not Billions on Law Enforcement, "The War on Drugs" and all those other resources being wasted that don't stop anyone from getting drugs any way.
5. Medical Marijuana, people who need that type of pain relief would actually get it, instead of being denied by some tight-assed VERY OLD members of Congress.
Just like the Gun Control issues, Criminals will get Guns whether there's a law or not, the only people it would affect are the law-abiding gun-toting citizens.

But I assume thanks to all the lobbying by the Alcohol and Tobacco industries that's why they remain legal. Keep the Congressmen in their pockets so-to-speak.

Especially when you look at how many deaths are caused by Alcohol and Tobacco, Alcohol is Poisonous to EVERY Organ in your Body, it can kill you just as it can get you to kill someone,
accidental or otherwise, yet IT is legal, and yet the argument most people take about keeping Drugs Illegal is "It can kill you just as it can get you to kill someone, accidental or otherwise"

The Local papers (at least in the U.S.) usually have a section where you can read stuff like "Joe Blow (Age 54) was arrested last night for DUI, this is his 22nd offense"
But I have YET to read "Jane Doe (29) was arrested last night for driving under the influence of Weed" or Heroin, Cocaine, hell even just the word "Narcotic"

It seems Congress doesn't mind people driving drunk (Just ask Ted Kennedy about Chappaquiddick), but they obviously must think that people are completely incapable of driving a car after smoking
a little weed once in a while.

Honestly, how many fights have you seen break out at a keg party?
Now, How many fights have you seen break out at a POT party?

Big Difference

I would go one step farther and Legalize Prostitution too.

Honestly, when you think about, just WHY is paying for Sex a crime?
Married Men do it all the time, in one form or another with their Wives. (I know this 25 year old married guy, who gets Sex maybe twice a year, because his new wife pulled the "It's my body" crap shortly after being married. Now he spends most nights in his bathroom wanking it, just like he had to do BEFORE he was married :D )

1. Prostitutes would be Government Inspected/Regulated and Certified clean, would cut down on STD's
2. Tax Prostitution = Big Revenue. (Between the Drug and Prostitution Tax, some of our Congressmen and Priests would actually pay their fair share for once)

Heh, I may lean to the Right on a lot of issues, but I lean to the Left on things like I mentioned above

P.S. If having more Police PREVENTED Crime, then I would be all for it.
However, Police don't PREVENT Crime, they only get involved AFTER the Crime has been committed.

It pisses me off to no end, seeing Two to Four Cop cars in a Parking lot parked Tail-to-Nose (like horses) so they can have their Driver's side window rolled down and sit and chat all day.
I want to yell "Go Patrol! You might catch someone doing something they shouldn't be doing, rather than sitting here chatting like a knitting-circle and waiting for something to come on the radio"

Hell down here, along I-95 they even park empty cop cars in the medians to get people to stop speeding. lolwut?

I don't have a shiny opinion of the Police, because back in the day when I had shoulder length hair and riding my 10-speed home from a friends house, and getting stopped by the Cops at least four times
in four different nights, because they "didn't like my looks" and just wanted to harass me by accusing me of stealing my own Bike, showed me what arses they can be.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page