Change of heart on socialized medicine

  • Thread starter Thread starter royal_archer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not despise anyone.

So being healthy is like getting a free car? That doesn’t even make any sense.

Under current situations, I cost you more. I don’t understand what’s so hard to get about that. Do you REALLY think the hospitals and doctors just shrug at the hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills I bankrupt on every few years?
Obvioiusly you despise the financially successfull. instead of thanking them for the amount of money they pay in order to help you, you insist on demonizing them for not giving you everything you want.

Once again you are arguing against a system that I already said is bad but you are advocating expanding some of the worse parts of the system.
 
You do realize that hamstrings you for life, right? I already live in crummy housing and living off of ramen and mac and cheese. I donate platelets every time I can for bus money, what more do you want from me? I have nothing left to shed.
So you don’t just want free medical care you want us to fund a more expensive lifestyle for you.
 
Obvioiusly you despise the financially successfull. instead of thanking them for the amount of money they pay in order to help you, you insist on demonizing them for not giving you everything you want.

Once again you are arguing against a system that I already said is bad but you are advocating expanding some of the worse parts of the system.
You don’t get it. Ill put it in very simple to understand terms for you or anyone reading. If she does what you think or what you want her to do, she dies soon or clutters the emergency rooms She does what she thinks she should do she can be a productive memeber of society. No more complicated than that. It’s not even debateble. You havent answered my question about are you for good Samritan laws either.:mad:
 
That is a silly arguement that since one person is the recipient of illgotten treasures, everyone has the right to do likewise because it it “fair” So if someone robs a bank and gets 2 million dollars then according to this “fairness” aguement everyone should be able to walk in to that bank and get their 2 million also. Obviously that is silly.
No no, its comparable to when you were back in grade school. If a kid brought gum for one person you had to give some to every body in the class or it was taken from you. Your logic would only hold up if all tax money was from robbery, and it isnt.
 
You don’t get it. Ill put it in very simple to understand terms for you or anyone reading. If she does what you think or what you want her to do, she dies soon or clutters the emergency rooms She does what she thinks she should do she can be a productive memeber of society. No more complicated than that. It’s not even debateble. You havent answered my question about are you for good Samritan laws either.:mad:
I listed several other options that could be tried but those fell on deaf ears. It seems like the only option that would be acceptable is to tax the unpopular members of our society. This complete unwillingness to consider any option other than taxation makes others wonder what the primary motive is.

As for good samaritan laws. that is too wide a net. but in general I support laws that protect people from liability when they attempt to help another person in good faith and act in accordance with their level of skill. Why would that come into question?
 
No you just want her to live like a dog it sounds like to me.
No, I just don’t think that her improved lifestyle justifies taking money I would be using to help other needy, especially when that money is filtered through the government and much of it is wasted paying off “campaign contributors”.
 
No no, its comparable to when you were back in grade school. If a kid brought gum for one person you had to give some to every body in the class or it was taken from you. Your logic would only hold up if all tax money was from robbery, and it isnt.
Sorry I didn’t know you were raised in a communist school. In my schoold we bbrought our own lunch and desert and it was never confiscated and redistributed.

However I can understand that if someone was the victim of a socialist policy they would want to then be recipients of that policy. Sort of like with Social Security where retire ees feel that since they were the victims they can victimize the next generation, thuss generating a vicious cycle that the politicians can abuse to expand their personal power.
 
I listed several other options that could be tried but those fell on deaf ears. It seems like the only option that would be acceptable is to tax the unpopular members of our society. This complete unwillingness to consider any option other than taxation makes others wonder what the primary motive is.

As for good samaritan laws. that is too wide a net. but in general I support laws that protect people from liability when they attempt to help another person in good faith and act in accordance with their level of skill. Why would that come into question?
Oh oh you forgot the other comonet of the good Samaritan laws, and thats requirement to help some in accedent cases , and not leaving the seen of an accedent. That dates back to common law days of the 1200s. Or the law that allows the law to commondere a privately owned motrvehicle in case of an emergency. By your logic those laws should be repealed.
 
Sorry I didn’t know you were raised in a communist school. In my schoold we bbrought our own lunch and desert and it was never confiscated and redistributed.

However I can understand that if someone was the victim of a socialist policy they would want to then be recipients of that policy. Sort of like with Social Security where retire ees feel that since they were the victims they can victimize the next generation, thuss generating a vicious cycle that the politicians can abuse to expand their personal power.
actually that was in a CAtholic school my parents went to. And when Icam around 2 decades later they had something for needy children called hot lunch, which I imagine you are against ,even though we all know that empty stomachs ddrop blood sugar thus ruining any abilty to learn the child has, until food brings the blood sugar backup.
 
Oh oh you forgot the other comonet of the good Samaritan laws, and thats requirement to help some in accedent cases , and not leaving the seen of an accedent. That dates back to common law days of the 1200s. Or the law that allows the law to commondere a privately owned motrvehicle in case of an emergency. By your logic those laws should be repealed.
Here in America most areas only require you to remain at the scene of an accident if you stop and lend help or it is occasionally written into job requirements for certain fields to which compensation is given. As for commondering property. I have no problem with it as long as the property owner is reimbursed after the fact as required by the constitution.
 
actually that was in a CAtholic school my parents went to. And when Icam around 2 decades later they had something for needy children called hot lunch, which I imagine you are against ,even though we all know that empty stomachs ddrop blood sugar thus ruining any abilty to learn the child has, until food brings the blood sugar backup.
So you (your parrents) voluntarilly accepted that rule, that is a different story. I am al for teaching good manners and voluntarily sharing is a polite way to exist in society. Likewise it is polite for men to remove their hats inside. I don’t have a problem with a private institution enforcing a not hat rule in its buildings but that does not equate to the government going into peoples private homes/lives to enforce that rule. Like wise sharing in society is polite and I have no problem with private entities enfocing such manners but that does not give license to the government to force these manners on unwilling individuals in their own private lives.

As for hot lunches, I have no problem with cafeterias in the schools who charge for food. I do have a problem with charging the kids different amounts for that food based on their parrents income.
 
So you (your parrents) voluntarilly accepted that rule, that is a different story. I am al for teaching good manners and voluntarily sharing is a polite way to exist in society. Likewise it is polite for men to remove their hats inside. I don’t have a problem with a private institution enforcing a not hat rule in its buildings but that does not equate to the government going into peoples private homes/lives to enforce that rule. Like wise sharing in society is polite and I have no problem with private entities enfocing such manners but that does not give license to the government to force these manners on unwilling individuals in their own private lives.

As for hot lunches, I have no problem with cafeterias in the schools who charge for food. I do have a problem with charging the kids different amounts for that food based on their parrents income.
You read too much into my compairson. What the school is teaching more than manners is fairness. As for charging different rates. I am for it. Poor children shouldn’t take punishment for their parents income.People who are starving are incapable of learning.
 
No no, its comparable to when you were back in grade school. If a kid brought gum for one person you had to give some to every body in the class or it was taken from you. Your logic would only hold up if all tax money was from robbery, and it isnt.
as for the other aspect of your arguement dealing with some tax revenue not being from robbery. If the governement came into money with out unjust taxes, such as through selling offshore oil, or nuclear energy or equipment sales to foriegn countries, etc then That money could very easily be used for medical care or other “services” you would have to ammend the constitution to allow the government that authority, and such services would have to be universal but it could accomplish what is being desired with out the evil means that I have objected to.
 
So you (your parrents) voluntarilly accepted that rule, that is a different story. I am al for teaching good manners and voluntarily sharing is a polite way to exist in society. Likewise it is polite for men to remove their hats inside. I don’t have a problem with a private institution enforcing a not hat rule in its buildings but that does not equate to the government going into peoples private homes/lives to enforce that rule. Like wise sharing in society is polite and I have no problem with private entities enfocing such manners but that does not give license to the government to force these manners on unwilling individuals in their own private lives.

As for hot lunches, I have no problem with cafeterias in the schools who charge for food. I do have a problem with charging the kids different amounts for that food based on their parrents income.
My parents didn’t voluntarly accept that rule. It was either do it or have a big nun swat you with a paddle.
 
You read too much into my compairson. What the school is teaching more than manners is fairness. As for charging different rates. I am for it. Poor children shouldn’t take punishment for their parents income.People who are starving are incapable of learning.
If the kids are starving then child welfare services should be involved and their parrents should be dealt with. We need to start dealing with deadbeat parrents more proactively.

Simply pushing the parental burden to non parrental community members only facilitates the problem.
 
If the kids are starving then child welfare services should be involved and their parrents should be dealt with. We need to start dealing with deadbeat parrents more proactively.

Simply pushing the parental burden to non parrental community members only facilitates the problem.
So if a father of the family gets laid off from his job and can’t find another, he is a deadbeat parent. You obviously not a parent, and been to ivolved in the busness world to understand the real world You need to get out of the office more and see the real world more.
 
The nuns kidnapped you and drug you into the school against the wishes of your parrents? :rolleyes:
That went on at every Catholic school I know of, and mostly public schools. Being Catholic I should being going to a Catholic school if possible. My dad went to Catholic schools, my mom went to mostly public, and got the same treatment as far as something like that goes. I wnet to both Catholic and public schools both special and reguler ed. Based on my wide variety of person school experience it would be utter folly to question my judgement of education.
 
So if a father of the family gets laid off from his job and can’t find another, he is a deadbeat parent. You obviously not a parent, and been to ivolved in the busness world to understand the real world You need to get out of the office more and see the real world more.
I am a Father and I just lost my job last spring. I work in a less than stable industry and have lost several jobs due to finniky customers changing their minds. The reality that I live with is that I do have to worry about job losses all the time. In order to prepare for that I have to stock up on money and keep a safety nest. Which is really frustrating when I accumulate that moeny to keep my fammily fed but some deadbeat wants to take it because their lack of effort has made them “needy”. (I’m sure you have heard the story of the ant and the grass hopper)

I pay for my childrens meals and they, in turn, have to do their chores, obey my rules, and participate in family social events. I also get all of the intangible bennefits of raising them. These other individuals what all of the bennefits of raising children with out any of the burdens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top