15 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesIf you can't trust a man to help people in need how do you expect forcing him to do so through taxation is going to work?
We are a nation of personal moral codes.
The laws we pass reflects the grand sum of everyone's moral codes. So if the majority agrees to pass a law (or not pass it) that levies a tax on the rich to raise money to help the poor, then that's what we do - even if it conflicts with many people's personal moral codes. So when I argue that the moral thing is ...[text shortened]... together, putting aside the partisan games, and finding a way to make this thing work.
It seems to me that most entitlement programs only serve to compound a problem rather than resolve it.
A perfect example is the local community kitchen. The more meals that the local foodbank hands out, the more people flock to the area for their 'free lunch'. It appears to be a vicious cycle.
The Kitchen's website says that 11,000 people were served last year in a communtiy of 22,000. There's something wrong with those kinds of numbers. In a rather affluent New England town, there is no possible way that half the individuals require assistance. No way.
I prefer to take care of myself and my family and then assist others that I deem need help rather than have the gov. mandate to whom and how much I should give of my time and effort. If indeed the entitlement programs were effective, shouldn't we expect to see an improvement in the situation rather than exponential growth to the contrary?
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeythe left needs to realize that EVERY law is a collective expression of morality.
I thought back during the abortion issue the left continually said we could not legislate morality? However, when it is morality they can agree with, all of a sudden its OK?
on abortion - you can legislate the moral view that the fetus is a human being, with all the same rights as those who've been born -- or you can legislate the moral view that the fetus is something less than human and the mother has some amount of choice over whether or not to give birth. But no matter what you do, there's SOME moral view involved, and there's usually no way to fulfill everyone's morality.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by monster truckSo if "entitlement programs" don't work to allieviate poverty, what does?
If you can't trust a man to help people in need how do you expect forcing him to do so through taxation is going to work?
It seems to me that most entitlement programs only serve to compound a problem rather than resolve it.
A perfect example is the local community kitchen. The more meals that the local foodbank hands out, the more people flock to ...[text shortened]... ect to see an improvement in the situation rather than exponential growth to the contrary?
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by monster truckI do trust people to help others who are in need. Many charities and churches put in a lot of admirable effort - and many individuals put in many hours volunteering. Without these efforts, conditions for many people would be much worse.
If you can't trust a man to help people in need how do you expect forcing him to do so through taxation is going to work?
It seems to me that most entitlement programs only serve to compound a problem rather than resolve it.
A perfect example is the local community kitchen. The more meals that the local foodbank hands out, the more people flock to ...[text shortened]... ect to see an improvement in the situation rather than exponential growth to the contrary?
But you are looking at the problem from the perspective of only looking for reasons why something "can't be done". Nothing ever got invented that way. If you start a community kitchen and discover that you're having a big problem with freeloaders, you sit down and figure out some way to solve the problem - and you keep trying until you solve it and then you let all the other kitchens know about your solution so they won't have to re-invent the wheel. When the next problem arises, you sit down and find a solution to that one.
I see the healthcare issue in the same way. I am not wedded to any particular solution. The goal is to make healthcare insurance affordable to everyone. We can start small if need be, but we should keep working at it. The Wright Brothers didn't invent a Boeing 747 the first time they built a plane. But we didn't sit around moaning about how lousy their invention was. We didn't spend years plotting to ensure that other peoples' inventions would fail. Someone just sat down and made some improvements, and then someone else improved on that and so on. No one in 1903 would've imagined that in 66 years, a man would have been put on the moon.
Regarding healthcare. Maybe the answer isn't taxation. Maybe it isn't regulation. Maybe there's some magnificent way of harnessing the private sector and natural charitable impulses to get everyone the healthcare that they need. But we have so many really smart people in this country. If we just stop sabotaging each others' ideas, we might actually get somewhere.
15 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by monster truckat least as hard as your "brother" is working to meet his basic needs.
Perhaps a better question is this- by your 'morality', just how much should I be forced to work to provide for my 'brother'?
the idea is that if "you're willing to play by the rules", you should be able to have a reasonable standard of living when the nation is as wealthy as the US. (Of course, we can have a lot of debate about what is "reasonable" ).
Also - you never know when you might find yourself in your "brother's" situation. Perhaps you find yourself in a new job that offers no health coverage and you need an expensive operation to save your life.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI apologize, I led you into that one.
at least as hard as your "brother" is working to meet his basic needs.
the idea is that if "you're willing to play by the rules", you should be able to have a reasonable standard of living when the nation is as wealthy as the US. (Of course, we can have a lot of debate about what is "reasonable" ).
Also - you never know when you might find yourself ...[text shortened]... that offers no health coverage and you need an expensive operation to save your life.
My brother hasn't worked to support his own basic needs for the past 25+ years.
He's leeched off the system by associating with females who receive free housing and does nothing more than work enough to buy beer.
I have had no health insurance for 11 years now.
I only visit the doctor as needed and pay cash for those visits.
I've had one major operation which I payed for out of pocket to the tune of $21K.
By not buying into the 'health insurance' scam, I've saved over 50K during that same time period.
From that you may deduce that I work. Alot.😉
I've lived very close to the entitlement system for most of my adult life. I agree that there are people that need help to survive or get back on their feet. I'm all for helping those folks on a local level. However feeding and housing the leeches while caring for those in need does nothing but breed more leeches.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by SleepyguyDoesn't really matter what my morality is. I'm just one voter. I can't impose my views on anyone else. (Hmm...what if I was king and could actually impose my views on others....that could be fun....but then I'd be responsible for all the unintended consequences of my decrees....that wouldn't be much fun...I'll stick with just being one voter)
Wow. Congratulations Mr. Truck. You have just become the slave of Mel's moral majority. LOL.
We're essentially all "slaves" to whatever the collective morality is - that is, the laws of the land. I'm sure every one of us could make a long list of things that don't fit our own sense of what the laws "ought to be" - but we're all stuck with the what the laws are. We each have one vote, and we each have our two cents to donate to the candidates of our choice. (Some have more than two cents but that's another topic).
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeywhen will you stop being so sensationalist?
I once thought that a new health care plan was inevitable. Why not when national health care plan has been the holy grail of the Democrat party for such a long time and with them now firmly in control of all aspects of government. However, last month I got a glimmer of hope that they may abandon yet another unaffordable massive entitlement program when 49% ...[text shortened]... ds and pass it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this will not be the final word if they do.
"their waterloo"? are you kidding me?
also, people may disagree with the current bill but that doesn't mean they're against the original idea of universal healthcare.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI couldn't agree more.
The big challenge is to find a way to allow everyone to have access to the affordable health insurance. It is morally wrong for a nation as wealthy as the US to tell 10-15% of the population that they can't get the treatment they need if they get really sick just because they are poor or work for a company that's not able to provide coverage.
I unders ...[text shortened]... se people here believed in doing the impossible. There is a solution. Find it. Do it.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI don't see how just being one voter absolves you of all responsibility for the unintended consequences of the policies you support with that vote. You want it both ways it seems. Why don't you quit doing this dance and just embrace the slavery concept that lies at the bottom of your slippery ideological slope?
Doesn't really matter what my morality is. I'm just one voter. I can't impose my views on anyone else. (Hmm...what if I was king and could actually impose my views on others....that could be fun....but then I'd be responsible for all the unintended consequences of my decrees....that wouldn't be much fun...I'll stick with just being one voter)
We ...[text shortened]... ndidates of our choice. (Some have more than two cents but that's another topic).
I mean, I know slavery's had a bad rap and all, but that's just because evil southern bigots were in charge of it. If altruistic progressives like you were in charge, it could be great! Everyone would be guaranteed a job, food and shelter etc. Slavery is true freedom with the right people in charge.
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by monster truckI think there are welfare fraud laws that would apply to what those females and your brother are doing. If not, there should be.
I apologize, I led you into that one.
My brother hasn't worked to support his own basic needs for the past 25+ years.
He's leeched off the system by associating with females who receive free housing and does nothing more than work enough to buy beer.
I have had no health insurance for 11 years now.
I only visit the doctor as needed and pay cash housing the leeches while caring for those in need does nothing but breed more leeches.
And congratulations on actually having a savings account instead of maxxing out all the credit cards. We'd be a richer nation if everyone followed your example.
Your approach to health insurance does address something that I wish would get brought up by SOMEONE in the current healthcare debate.
Insurance should only be used for the really big expenses - the sort of thing where a person ends up dying because they can't afford the treatment for some major condition. There's no way that insurance needs to be covering the costs of routine doctor's visits. As you've pointed out, you were able to handle even that $21,000 operation - and because you were paying out of pocket, you may've shopped around to get the best deal (while ensuring you still got quality care).
All insurance is essentially a "scam" in the sense that you end up paying out more over your lifetime than you would expect to pay on average if you covered all of your own costs. That's why people don't get insurance to cover their grocery bill or their electric bill. The whole point of insurance is to give you peace of mind in case of that really rare, but catastrophic event. So healthcare reform should focus a LOT on getting people to pay their own way for all of the other costs. Of course, the insurance industry would strongly oppose this, but it seems like they oppose everything, so why not go for it?