Another one o' them smoking ban threads....

[Rog]

Originally Posted by cacophony

lollerskates.

also i find it ironic that you're suggesting that we be humane, but you're more interested in guarding your own personal finances than ensuring that no child, no matter how poor his or her circumstances, has to die of treatable diseases. that's freakin' humane, brother.
.

</p>
Just what i was going to say

[cacophony]

^ even an obgyn? i never understand when coverage considers obgyn a "specialist." for women, it's pretty much the same thing as a general practitioner. dermatologist is optional, gastroenterologist is only necessary when problems arise. but obgyn is annual routine maintenance.

i've been lucky because my last two plans allowed me to pick my obgyn without a referral from my primary care physician. previous plans i'd been on considered them specialists and i had to get a referral. which is just silly.

[potatobroth]

with the specialists I had to see in the past few years, I was always shocked that my insurance company kept sending me over to my prim care phys. it just seemed like a total waste of money to both me and the ins co since the office visits were less than five minutes long and consisted of, "so, did you go see X specialist yet? oh, you needed to come here first for insurance reasons? ok, go see X specialist."

its an industry of wasted money and unfortunately most of it is mine.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sarcasmo

It's not about supporting the war. It's about the fact that there are men and women who have given something far more valuable than money to you and every other self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled American out there...

OT a bit but I wanted to respond to this.

Lord knows I would be cursing us mopes back stateside if I were in such a hell on earth in the face of such indifference from home. Bitter wouldn't be the word. But I think some of this conventional bitterness misses the picture. like totally. It was one of your own, the commander in chief, that told us to be indfferent, to go to the mall, to spend instead of sacrifice, to bankrupt your service structures with tax credits that coincidentally are about the same dollar amounts as a chinese made flat screen tv at walmart.

I won't argue whether or not being self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled is ingrained in our culture. I will argue that the strategy of diversion played by the pentagon run media and the white house had nothing to do with the fact that americans behave this way. They played their hand for one reason and one reason only. That the war is a sham and the more anyone starts digging into cost benefit analysis or ethical ramifications they see how much of a sham it is.

You could say the american people are guilty of allowing themselves to be placed under such soma. But now our behaviors of obedience and emotional patriotism become just as much of a factor as being self centered or spoiled.

People do what their leaders tell them to do. Soldiers go to war because they are told it is good for the country. Citizens max their credit cards in obstinence toward the financial writing on the wall.

We're all being played. And I don't want to be an asshole for saying this but I think its the truth.


What I'm really trying to say is this. I'm personally grateful for your service, everyone I know who hates the war are grateful for your service, and the role for each of us, citizen and soldier, is to come together against the real enemy - the prevarications and lies of our leaders. You deserve the same support enjoyed by the soldiers of ww2, our grandfathers and grandmothers who lived off of rations. We aren't that generation but we aren't being asked to be that generation either. And you have to fucking wonder why.

[Sarcasmo]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

OT a bit but I wanted to respond to this.

Lord knows I would be cursing us mopes back stateside if I were in such a hell on earth in the face of such indifference from home. Bitter wouldn't be the word. But I think some of this conventional bitterness misses the picture. like totally. It was one of your own, the commander in chief, that told us to be indfferent, to go to the mall, to spend instead of sacrifice, to bankrupt your service structures with tax credits that coincidentally are about the same dollar amounts as a chinese made flat screen tv at walmart.

I won't argue whether or not being self-centered, think-only-about-myself, prissy, pampered, spoiled is ingrained in our culture. I will argue that the strategy of diversion played by the pentagon run media and the white house had nothing to do with the fact that americans behave this way. They played their hand for one reason and one reason only. That the war is a sham and the more anyone starts digging into cost benefit analysis or ethical ramifications they see how much of a sham it is.

You could say the american people are guilty of allowing themselves to be placed under such soma. But now our behaviors of obedience and emotional patriotism become just as much of a factor as being self centered or spoiled.

People do what their leaders tell them to do. Soldiers go to war because they are told it is good for the country. Citizens max their credit cards in obstinence toward the financial writing on the wall.

We're all being played. And I don't want to be an asshole for saying this but I think its the truth.

And I wont disagree with you on any particular point in your message, but I think you either misread where I was going with my argument, or I explained it too obtusely, which I've been known to do.

I've held the opinion for a while now that some kind of semi-compulsory social service should be the norm for young adults in this country, for only a couple of years. Of course, this would not be limited to military service, but would extend to the Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross; any charitable organization in need of volunteers would do. And with a little re-working, such service could easily mimic military service in terms of pay or time served, and the many benefits that military members earn through their service would be offered as well. I just see a real problem with the way young people are developing with no sense of civic responsibility or pride. Very few people have the kind of experience in a culture where you're not only responsible for yourself, but for those around you, and for those you serve. Ours is one of instant self gratification and obsession. That's more to what I was getting at. Hopefully I've explained it a little bit better. Think what you want of the war, the motivation, the legitimacy, the management. The men and women who have dedicated their lives to honorably serving our Nation as Her warriors are deserving of everything good that our society has to offer. I think that we'd be better off as a nation if we encouraged and rewarded our youth for voluntary and selfless service.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sarcasmo

And I wont disagree with you on any particular point in your message, but I think you either misread where I was going with my argument, or I explained it too obtusely, which I've been known to do.

I've held the opinion for a while now that some kind of semi-compulsory social service should be the norm for young adults in this country, for only a couple of years. Of course, this would not be limited to military service, but would extend to the Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross; any charitable organization in need of volunteers would do. And with a little re-working, such service could easily mimic military service in terms of pay or time served, and the many benefits that military members earn through their service would be offered as well. I just see a real problem with the way young people are developing with no sense of civic responsibility or pride. Very few people have the kind of experience in a culture where you're not only responsible for yourself, but for those around you, and for those you serve. Ours is one of instant self gratification and obsession. That's more to what I was getting at. Hopefully I've explained it a little bit better. Think what you want of the war, the motivation, the legitimacy, the management. The men and women who have dedicated their lives to honorably serving our Nation as Her warriors are deserving of everything good that our society has to offer. I think that we'd be better off as a nation if we encouraged and rewarded our youth for voluntary and selfless service.

i don't think I misread your post. I was more just responding to how I just felt fucking awful hearing about what you're going through and just a little pissed that its going on. especially when i have argued myself into thinking that the foundation of the war is cracked and rotting.

btw i added this..


What I'm really trying to say is this. I'm personally grateful for your service, everyone I know who hates the war are grateful for your service, and the role for each of us, citizen and soldier, is to come together against the real enemy - the prevarications and lies of our leaders. You deserve the same support enjoyed by the soldiers of ww2, our grandfathers and grandmothers who lived off of rations. We aren't that generation but we aren't being asked to be that generation either. And you have to fucking wonder why.

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i've been thinking that from the start.

i feel like there are huge holes in our friend's argument. he's arguing constitutionality and advocating smaller government, and then suggesting that we screen people according to the nature and cause of their health care needs and then judge them worthy of coverage. does not compute.

if you don't want to be the "bad guy," IsiliRunite, participate in the conversation. you've done nothing to address any of the questions posed. i've asked a number of times whether you think the child of a rich man deserves a better chance than the child of a poor man. so how's about it? do you think it's okay for people do die of treatable conditions simply because they can't afford coverage? i want an answer to that. you make yourself the "bad guy" when you refuse to address the simple ethical dilemma that is a necessary component of many of our opinions on the subject.

i'm willing to accept any answer here, such as, "no it's not right, but we all have to shuffle off this mortal coil sometime." or, "no one deserves health, it's not a basic human right." ANYTHING. hell, i can't even argue with you if you don't regard health as a basic human right. i can disagree but i can't empirically disprove your perspective.

you're hiding behind constitutionality instead of addressing what is, for everyone else, a moral debate. and you're hiding behind philosophical naval-gazing about the nature of humanity and the evolution of compassion. i think we can all agree that the naval-gazing "solution" you offered would be a wonderful world indeed, but since we all live in the world TODAY at this specific point in evolution, it's not too much to ask that you come out from your hiding place and engage in a real world discussion.

so far you've taken a position that seems to be entirely about not wanting anyone else to get their grubby mitts on your money;. if you don't want to be viewed as something of a selfish "bad guy" it's up to you to correct the impression you've created. no one is responsible for what you've said in this thread but you.

Just for clarification, because its obvious you have no idea what I am talking about.

1. Federal Universal Healthchare is illegal, and aside from being illegal it would entail a bigger government that I would not appreciate
2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional it would, as well, entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

That is not my entire argument, but you are confusing and blending two major points of my argument and calling me a hypocrite.

I'm not going to address specifics if you all can't demonstrate that you are capable of understanding the basics of my arguments.

And while there are probabilities that one can get hurt doing anything, let me set up a little contrasting list so you can understand me:
Driving - Potentially Dangerous
Driving without a seatbelt - Foolish behaviour to in which a person unnecessarily increases the probability of physical harm. I do not want to pay for these people
Playing Hockey - Potentially Dangerous
Playing Hockey without a helmet - A person's explicit action, obviously not to get injured, but still unnecessarily increasing the base probability of physical harm

It is not "inhumane" or a "stupid analogy" to deny universal health coverage to people who are not behaving in their self-interests when it is realistic and totally reasonable for them to do so. But, obviously, we can not discriminate with universal healthcare:

2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional by deciding who has the right to life, it would entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

There is another explanation for why I do not like Universal Healthcare, so let me know if that makes any more sense.

With respect to my foreign policy...
Isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

With respect to my views on the modern man
Isolated - separated from other persons or things; alone; solitary.

I volunteer at a hospital every week, which is one way I walk the walk about people actively solving people problems instead of creating big governments, which I do not appreciate, instead of being an active member of compassion and responsibility in their community

I also give blood. I don't mind if you have views that oppose mine, but if you are going to attempt to understand and then oppose mine, don't do it half-heartedly. Bitches

[Rog]

Twice in your last last post you mention 'punishing people's wallets', money before people? typical chelsea fan :P

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

It is not "inhumane" or a "stupid analogy" to deny universal health coverage to people who are not behaving in their self-interests when it is realistic and totally reasonable for them to do so. But, obviously, we can not discriminate with universal healthcare:

2. Even if it were passed, in order to not punish the wallet's of people who have taken care of themselves, it would involve equally unconstitutional screening systems and aside from being unconstitutional by deciding who has the right to life, it would entail a bigger government I would not appreciate

Again, a glaring self contradiction. You can't call it humane to enforce a criteria for discrimination based on your own personal definition of what is acting in one's self-interest and inhumane if a government program did the same thing.

Anyway, we're still having the problem of these pedestrian notions of what is acting in one's self interest and accountability. I mean sorry to add to the dog pile, but fuck, mate. Let's start off by deciding how much medical care expenses are dealt out because of environment versus genetic dispositions. And of the subset caused by environment how much is spent because of pollution, asbestos, and lead cookery, and how much is actually caused by one's own choices. And of that subset, how much of those choices could be legally deemed to be reasonably willfully self destructive? Seriously, lets quantify this.

[Strangelet]

I think what you're trying to do, Isillrunite, is argue is a libertarian/ayn randian outlook on health care.

So lets go to the source. Here's Dr. Ron Paul speaking about health care.


What I find interesting is he has more in common with the things cacophony and Sarcasmo and Sean has been saying than the things you've been saying.
I honestly believe Ron Paul is a god and deserved a less frenzied fan base to color what are clear practical objectives behind the sensationalist libertarian philosophy. just my opinion. People got hung up on the whole "do away with the department of x" half because the media loved to pave over the pragmatic side of Paul and half because his crazy ass followers made sure of it.