Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
    I'm pretty sure I don't want anything from you, much less an explanation.
    Yeah and I didn't want you to prove anything to me either. But I guess you'll remain in the dark when it comes to comprehension. But this is off topic, so do your best.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #77
      Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

      "Free" health care is a misnomer. Like a free lunch, there is no such thing. Someone is paying for it.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #78
        Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

        Originally posted by dblack View Post
        Well, that's even worse then. Public financing to private vendors is the epitome of corporatism.

        Imagine we converted our public education system to something similar. Federally financed vouchers to all parents for private schools of their choice. What do you suppose would happen to the tuition for private education?
        No, it wouldn't be worse. The citizenry would just be pooling their resources to pay for treatment that would still remain private (however, there would still be public hospitals, clinics, etc.). There's nothing corporatist about the people exercising their collective power to keep prices down through negotiation with these private vendors. In fact, it would be this vast pool that would entice vendors to compete for lower costs. What we have now, is an absolutely unnecessary and expensive system through which some people use emergency facilities for their catastrophic care, and some don't pay, which is then passed on to the rest of us (so in a sense, costs are already socialized, but with no effective means to negotiate for lower prices). I would rather entrust a collective force of the people, which would be accountable to the public, than to let something as essential as health care be left up to for-profit corporations, acting as middle men, who have no interests in keeping costs down, and who have not interest in health, only profit.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #79
          Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

          Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
          No, it wouldn't be worse. The citizenry would just be pooling their resources to pay for treatment that would still remain private (however, there would still be public hospitals, clinics, etc.). There's nothing corporatist about the people exercising their collective power to keep prices down through negotiation with these private vendors. In fact, it would be this vast pool that would entice vendors to compete for lower costs. What we have now, is an absolutely unnecessary and expensive system through which some people use emergency facilities for their catastrophic care, and some don't pay, which is then passed on to the rest of us (so in a sense, costs are already socialized, but with no effective means to negotiate for lower prices). I would rather entrust a collective force of the people, which would be accountable to the public, than to let something as essential as health care be left up to for-profit corporations, acting as middle men, who have no interests in keeping costs down, and who have not interest in health, only profit.
          Collective power is the currency of corporatism.

          I'm honestly a little surprised to see you pitching the centralized solution. I thought we'd agreed, in times past, that centralizing coercive state power was, in general, a bad thing - something to be avoided. Especially in the US, how are you imagining that such a nexus of control will not be overwhelmed by avarice and the lust for power that seems to drive pretty much everything in our society? Do you really think that putting the state in charge of something is fundamental and personal as our health care will NOT be used as a means of controlling us?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #80
            Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

            Originally posted by dblack View Post
            Collective power is the currency of corporatism.

            I'm honestly a little surprised to see you pitching the centralized solution. I thought we'd agreed, in times past, that centralizing coercive state power was, in general, a bad thing - something to be avoided. Especially in the US, how are you imagining that such a nexus of control will not be overwhelmed by avarice and the lust for power that seems to drive pretty much everything in our society? Do you really think that putting the state in charge of something is fundamental and personal as our health care will NOT be used as a means of controlling us?
            Well, I don't think it has to be centralized. First and foremost, I have to live in the society that exists as it is now (and while I can do my best to make those changes I think best, short of being a revolutionary, I have to work with what I'm given). Yes, I think a "national" system could be federated out to the states and that further decentralized down to local governments, in terms of paying for universal health care.

            You and I have had very good conversations in the past, and I respect your views on libertarianism, and hopefully, you can respect mine (you're more to the right of me, but we've always known that). I think you know, that in a perfect world, and if I had my way, we'd have a total anarchistic society where everyone would contribute to society and society would provide for the individual (the perfect equilibrium). I don't think that I depart too far from what some anarchist theorists have proscribed. In fact, the god father of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, thought an evolutionary path to anarchism to could be achieved by building alternative institutions within the construct of the old order, and that these institutions would eventually replace the capitalist system. Now, I may not agree 100% with him on an evolutionary path from within the old order, I can take some of what he theorized and apply it to institutions that I deem worthy of benefit to society as a whole. I happen to think that health care is one of those institutions, and I think that within the capitalist system we have, and without its overthrow, the best alternative, in order to keep people alive and health care costs down, is the single-payer system, because it would still be something that can be kept accountable to the people, rather than parasitic insurance companies that have no agenda other than the sake of profit itself, the people be damned.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #81
              Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

              Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
              I disagree. . . .
              So in other words, the Soviets weren't United until the Bolsheviks came along with their philosophy of democratic centralization. They then became the Soviet Union, which drew legitimacy from the idea that a dictatorship of the proletariat would best care for the well-being of the people.

              I used the words "good person in charge" in my post, which of course does not reflect the ideals of Leninism, but the reality is that the politics of the Soviet Union did become dominated by its leadership, hence my choice of words.

              Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
              But before I ramble too much about the Revolution itself, socialism doesn't require a state nor centralization, in fact, that's not one of the basic tenets of any of the theory's variants. What is a basic tenet is that workers possess the means of production and that the product of that labor is owned by the producers.
              So far, I am having a hard time distinguishing this from capitalism. There is absolutely nothing in capitalism that prevents worker-owned companies from forming, and indeed, this is seen happening in practice. The reason they have not come to dominate is because most of the value created by a company is created by the contributions of capital.

              Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
              The point of production is where the theory of socialism's principles reside. It rests, no doubt, on the Labor Theory of Value, no different than what Adam Smith proscribed. It also doesn't rely on the surplus value to be taken by some owning class to be distributed amongst themselves, while the labor class competed with each other to provide this utility.
              Marx's labor theory of value was quite incredibly different than Smith's. Marx's labor theory looked backwards; to define the value of a good as the amount of labor that went into the production of the good, and also the amount of labor that went into the production of any capital required in its production. Smith's labor theory looked forwards; and defined the value of a good as the amount of labor it would trade for in the marketplace.

              Socialists tend to dislike the idea of profit. But this is the very bedrock of our prosperity. This "surplus value" which is "stolen" from the workers, is put to use by capitalists to create more capital. They build more machines, which - with the help of labor - can create better quality quality goods, more cheaply, and more efficiently than labor could alone. Socialism is the rejection of this process of capital formation, and that is why capitalism will beat socialism every time.

              20 people working with shovels will never move as much earth in a day as one person with a bulldozer.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #82
                Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                Your poll is a cluster fuck.

                The question should be:

                Should the Government Provide Universal Health Care All Americans can afford?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #83
                  Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                  Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                  Your poll is a cluster fuck.

                  The question should be:

                  Should the Government Provide Universal Health Care All Americans can afford?
                  And my answer would be "no". Government should not provide health care.

                  I'm sort of curious, for those who think government should provide health care. Is there anything, in the way of life's necessities, that government shouldn't provide? Why not? What are the criteria? How do we decide what government should be responsible for and what it should stay out of?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #84
                    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                    Boy, that 3 per cent is touted around a lot. 3 per cent in the grocery business, 3 per cent in retail which I once heard someone say, and now the insurance folks only get 3 per cent, and of course that is pre tax. I do not believe that 3 per cent, in retail or insurance. I am not sure how they arrive at this number, but there are contortions going on, if that is their profit prior to paying taxes. Voodoo accounting I think.

                    Yet lets say that 3 per cent is right, for the sake of argument. What you failed to mention are the costs of operating that are substracted to get that 3 per cent. Add that cost in with the 3 and you would come up with a closer number as to the money that would be saved.

                    The 3 per cent sounds minimal UNTIL you consider the money paid for operation, buildings, expenses, labor, etc. And don't forget the labor costs are high, especially with some of the bonuses these execs sometime get.
                    You will not see those savings in a government-run system. Whatever the government saves on administrative costs will be offset by increased fraud.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #85
                      Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                      Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                      There is no such thing as free universal healthcare. Doctors dont work for free. Medicine is not free. The infrastructure is not free. It is impossible for the govt to provide anything for no cost to all americans. Since youre actually asking if the govt should raise taxes to provide no extra charge healthcare to all americans, then no. Eliminating competition and having bureaucrats in charge of providing the service would lower quality and increase cost for me.
                      Would it be fair to say that you think that people who cannot afford healthcare insurance should just shut up and die? I ask because I recently developed a mild heart arrhythmia and nearly had a heart attack due to the fact that I was replaced with third-world slave labor and now sleep on the floor of a family members basement after losing 75% of my stuff to two floods in a single week. I went to the hospital and got charity care which means you paid for it. Should I just have shut up and died?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #86
                        Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                        Originally posted by TomBlaze View Post
                        Would it be fair to say that you think that people who cannot afford healthcare insurance should just shut up and die? I ask because I recently developed a mild heart arrhythmia and nearly had a heart attack due to the fact that I was replaced with third-world slave labor and now sleep on the floor of a family members basement after losing 75% of my stuff to two floods in a single week. I went to the hospital and got charity care which means you paid for it. Should I just have shut up and died?
                        Do you really think that the only options are to concede to a government takeover of health care or shut up and die? I realize this is what they're selling (government/corporate collusion is your only hope!!!!), but I think it's a very bad 'option'.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #87
                          Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                          Originally posted by Haplo View Post
                          Well, in the absence of a personal connection or a direct monetary interest, I don't think anyone in this world has a reason to care about you. I mean, yeah, there are altruists out there, but they don't have what it takes to rise to the top in any large institution. The theory behind the Soviet Union was that they would put the state in charge of everything, and then make sure that there was a good person in charge of it all, directing everyone and everything to the best solutions. It worked for a little while (maybe), but eventually, the unscrupulous will band together and find a way to take power.

                          That is why decentralization is a good idea, and capitalism forms the basis for decentralization
                          .
                          So centralizing power to a handful of corporations is a better idea? Corporations are dictatorships and the general public has no say in how they conduct their business. At least a government is a reflection of the will of the people. At least it is supposed to be.

                          We have 10 banks that control over 80% of the nation's wealth. That's ten people that pretty much control our money supply. We have about 5-10 corporations that control the vast majority of our TV and internet. That's 5-10 people who control the flow of information. There are about 7 companies that control the nation's medicine supply. That's 7 people who control our pharmaceuticals. There are about 5-10 companies that control the nation's energy supply. That's 5-10 people who control YOUR access to energy needs. So basically you have a very small group of individuals who control all of this who only care about profit and you think this is a great way to run the country?

                          I have to give the extreme right-wing conservative politicians credit. They have actually brainwashed people into believing that this is the best thing for them. I find it ironinc that people will vote against their own interests to satisfy their hate for those who do not agree with their morals.

                          We are so fucking doomed.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #88
                            Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                            Originally posted by TomBlaze View Post
                            So centralizing power to a handful of corporations is a better idea? Corporations are dictatorships and the general public has no say in how they conduct their business. At least a government is a reflection of the will of the people. At least it is supposed to be.
                            Right. But you seem to recognize that it is not.

                            We are so fucking doomed.
                            Agreed.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #89
                              Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                              Originally posted by TomBlaze View Post
                              Would it be fair to say that you think that people who cannot afford healthcare insurance should just shut up and die? I ask because I recently developed a mild heart arrhythmia and nearly had a heart attack due to the fact that I was replaced with third-world slave labor and now sleep on the floor of a family members basement after losing 75% of my stuff to two floods in a single week. I went to the hospital and got charity care which means you paid for it. Should I just have shut up and died?
                              This line of argument would have more merit if government systems didn't also involve the rationing of finite resources. If you happened to have a heart problem that required a treatment that the government decided not to budget for, then yes, the government would expect you to shut up and die. As a matter of fact, they'd help you along.

                              Chances are, you wouldn't even get the option of finding a way to pay for the treatment privately, since for political reasons doctors are discouraged from recommending treatments the government doesn't cover.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #90
                                Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                                Originally posted by adaher View Post
                                This line of argument would have more merit if government systems didn't also involve the rationing of finite resources. If you happened to have a heart problem that required a treatment that the government decided not to budget for, then yes, the government would expect you to shut up and die. As a matter of fact, they'd help you along.

                                Chances are, you wouldn't even get the option of finding a way to pay for the treatment privately, since for political reasons doctors are discouraged from recommending treatments the government doesn't cover.
                                Oh geez....:rolleyes:

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X