Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
He does not want the truth which you speak of course.
Well lets see,with my insurance it cost me about $100
oh my god now i am bankrupt....lmfao....
What you had done was nothing special there friend.
Who is "he"? And what truth?He does not want the truth which you speak of course.
Forcing a person to buy insurance in other instances isn't a justification to force people to buy it in more instances. You are correct, people are forced to buy other kinds of insurance. You are presenting a "two wrongs make something right " argument, which is known as a rationalization. The slippery slope already exists so we may as well accept it? Hmm.. Why?
Yes I'd agree some peope prefer to get health care and even prefer to have others pay for it. Just as people need food to keep from starving and warm jackets to keep from freezing to death.
Choice factor? It isn't really a "choice" if somebody else decides for you, I'll agree with that if that is your point. So the question remains, are YOU okay with others making choices for you concerning your body and your money? Do you agree that isn't freedom?
Everyone "needs" to pay for it? I'd agree that it might make it easier for Peter, if somebody makes Paul pay for him. Would you agree that violates Paul's freedom of choice though?
I don't think you are oversimplifiying it, I think you are skirting the issue of how you will achieve a "percieved good" through force and whether that is a "solution" that will have dire unintended consequences.
The meat of it is when you remove a persons ability to chose their own destiny, you are not advocating freedom.
Here I'll simpify it...
You own you, I own me. Forcing a peaceful person to do something against their will violates that concept. I can't endorse that.
Here is what I used to make that statement.....read again and check again. when you include government sponsored donations we may not be at the top, but the donations of the people themselves outstrip our nearest competitor by almost two to one. this is what is called charity, not the forced contributions of a subservient people. i realize that the typical statist may see no difference between the two, it's a little something called freedom of choice.
Ok so the logic of the herd and the hive...I get that....what is it you are advocating? You know you don't like my ideology but you present none yourself?how can you equate these things? you choose to drive a car and must prove your responsibility before being allowed that privilege. you are only forced to purchase home owner's insurance if someone else owns the title to your property. it is a guarantee of their investment. no one is forcing you to subscribe to cable television, it is a luxury service and the choices offered are at the discretion of the provider. health insurance, on the other hand, is not about the choices you make, our health is an integral part of our existence. being forced to pay for health insurance is the same as being forced to pay for the air you breathe, just as taxing your income is being forced to pay for maintaining you own existence.
we rationalize that the unity of the state must be supported by such slavery and that may be so, but the necessity of increasing the strength of our bonds by increasing this taxation of our existence does not necessarily follow. the survival of the state and of the society cannot be considered our ultimate goal if individual accomplishment is to be valued at all. the herd and the hive are for unthinking beasts. man is a different sort of animal altogether.
of course he's not advocating freedom. he's advocating for the material trappings of equality, just as any other good populist fraud. he's advocating for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, regardless of individual effort. there is logic to what he proposes, but it is the logic of the herd. it is the logic that proceeds from the idea that the individual is powerless on his own and must have the others to advocate for him. it is the self-fulfilling prophecy of the statist.
What cost you $100? How much is your insurance per year or month? Makes no difference my whole point is the same thing in Canada costs me less.....so is it bad?Well lets see,with my insurance it cost me about $100
oh my god now i am bankrupt....lmfao....
What you had done was nothing special there friend.
What are the dire unintended consequences of allowing one person or a group to mandate what another peaceful individual will do?My examples were merely to point out what you were saying was so wrong with health care does indeed happen in other instances in society, seemingly without harm...in fact some could argue to better society...Such as Car insurance for example: if it was not mandated for everyone? how would it work for anyone? Maybe society would be better off without it at all? I don't know.....
All I am saying is how is it wrong to provide health care for a people? Even if some of those people, Those who can afford it the most have to pay for the ones who can't. What are some of the dire unintended consequences you are so worried about?
Still waiting for the unintended dire consequences? What are they?What are the dire unintended consequences of allowing one person or a group to mandate what another peaceful individual will do?
Aren't we already experiencing some of them now? Can you honestly say YOU own your body? Your real estate ? ALL the fruit of your labor? The ability to live a peaceful life unmolested ?
If you want to "better society" I'd suggest stop viewing society as a collective. Recognize society is an accumulation of many different people with many different motives, desires, abilities and drive. Everybody deserves respect, nobody deserves to be "made" to do anything against their will if they aren't harming another. THAT is our obligation to our fellow man, to leave him alone if he does the same to us. Not to provide nourishment, charity, or a place to live. All we are OBLIGATED to do in a JUST society is permit people to live peacefully, the result of their life and their lifestyle is up to them.
Do I believe in charity being a "good" thing? Yes. I don't think it remains "good" or even charity if it is performed under duress though.
There's nothing stopping people that preach charity to practice it. I heartily endorse that behavior.
Reflect on the last post I made and the second paragraph, where I ask questions....the questions were meant to be rhetorical.Still waiting for the unintended dire consequences? What are they?
funniest line in the movie...I'm noticing that not everyone even understands the health care bill... so here's a fun cartoon to get everyone up to speed:
[video=youtube;3-Ilc5xK2_E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Ilc5xK2_E&feature=player_embedded[/video]
well that was cute. so you're basing your opinion on a survey with some unspecified methodology, that doesn't even tell what sort of donations they're talking about. why don't we get back to what i was talking about and back it with some real comparisons. follow this link - http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International Giving highlights.pdf - to an interesting little paper that bases its findings on something a bit more substantial. it may be a few years old, but takes into account only individual donations and bases them on percentage of gdp.Here is what I used to make that statement.....
Link is a completely blank page.....Why am I not surprised....well that was cute. so you're basing your opinion on a survey with some unspecified methodology, that doesn't even tell what sort of donations they're talking about. why don't we get back to what i was talking about and back it with some real comparisons. follow this link - http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International Giving highlights.pdf - to an interesting little paper that bases its findings on something a bit more substantial. it may be a few years old, but takes into account only individual donations and bases them on percentage of gdp.
ummm ok....So what is this? Looks like a bunch of cryptic letters and numbers then a statement that the French are losersTable 1 Individual giving and income tax plus employees and employers social security contributions (as % of labour costs), 2005
4 What are the reasons for variation in levels of giving?
Individual giving as % of GDP
Employees social security contribution
Country
Employers social security contribution2
Income Tax1
Total Tax Take
USA 29.1 14.6 7.3 7.3 1.67
UK 33.5 15.7 8.2 9.6 0.73
Canada 31.6 14.8 6.2 10.5 0.72
Australia 28.3 22.7 0.0 5.7 0.69
Rep of Ireland 25.7 11.4 4.7 9.7 0.47
Netherlands 38.6 9.5 19.7 9.5 0.45
New Zealand3 20.5 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.29
Turkey 42.7 12.7 12.3 17.7 0.23
Germany 51.8 17.3 17.3 17.3 0.22
France 50.1 10.8 9.6 29.7 0.14
Yet another reason the french are losers...
Good paper chief!
that's odd. when i click on it it takes me to a paper comparing the charitable donations of major nations. it's a simple little pdf file that's easily read by adobe reader. perhaps it's there and you just don't like what it has to say.Link is a completely blank page.....Why am I not surprised....
I don't....>and i don't know anyone who does.......We def do a lot of traveling down there as a people....With all of our snowbirds and it would make sense to have some people in fact using your system that are Canadians. But I think that it is just human nature to want to jump to the head of the line...Wouldn't you say?It didnt ome out too well sorry, try this link
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf
Why do canadians still come to america for treatment and to fill their scripts if ya got da bomb of stealthcare plans?