OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation.

Now see this is where the problem begins... the government has a proven history of problems spending our taxes and thus does not qualify for taking new responsibilities. If a college student is failing the majority of his classes you don't sign him up for another 4 credit class.

Originally Posted by thejeff

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today?

Until our government can fix existing problems I don't have any faith in them controlling more of my life... such as healthcare. To blindly believe a huge government with many problems can run healthcare is like not buckling your seatbelt when the driver is heavily drunk... it's like asking for a trouble.

Originally Posted by thejeff

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

Yes everyone should contribute to society when possible.

Originally Posted by thejeff

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

The "shelters" are understaffed, and very limited in capabilities. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church. And still, very few if any of these "shelters" and other aid programs provide effective counseling to help reintegrate people into society. Many of them have been through traumatic events on their way to living in the streets, and more still experience traumatic events once there. It's kind of silly to postulate that they are actually just lazy or uncooperative, when many of them are scared, confused, conflicted, and deeply depressed - if not outright mentally ill. It is our society, and our economy that allow them to reach bottom, it is sort of our collective responsibility to help them up.

As far as people leeching off of a health care system, sure, people abuse organized systems all the time. I can imagine it's unlikely you have worked at a single place that did not have at least one employee who did not pull their weight. They were abusing their employment situation, earning the same wage as you while expending less effort. Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church.<3

Citation Needed.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

The difference here is that if my employer hires someone incompetent or messed up in some other way then its the company which suffers and may eventually die to competition. Now in regards to government we don't have any second, third, tenth, etc., option which will take over. You cannot compare companies to government... apples & rocks.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

I agree more perfect than the last... which means we have to repair our current government departments before adding new ones such as healthcare. As I wrote earlier if a college student is having serious problems with his classes you do not sign him up with another 4 credit class.

[Bwaha]

The one position that I agree with Obama is his dislike of the "Real Id" laws. I heard some people talking about it and was horrified. Bigger Brother...

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by PyroStock

Citation Needed.

Wait, out of all of this bickering, you want to vet this statement?

The claim is anecdotal. That is to say, it is only an observation gleaned from my own trials. Don't believe me? I don't really care if you do or not. I'm the one that made the phone calls - the list was provided by my hospital. I am afraid that I did not record the phone calls, nor publish an article about my experience, that I can then reference here.

But, thank you for caring about veracity, hopefully at some point you can find something even more meaningful to contribute to the discussion.

Originally Posted by NTJedi

The difference here is that if my employer hires someone incompetent or messed up in some other way then its the company which suffers and may eventually die to competition. Now in regards to government we don't have any second, third, tenth, etc., option which will take over. You cannot compare companies to government... apples & rocks.

I guess maybe what I was trying to say, is that perhaps our best option now is to create that second option - to give ourselves the choice between a barely functioning old workhorse, or a newer model, with more torque, that maybe has a few kinks to work out.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I guess maybe what I was trying to say, is that perhaps our best option now is to create that second option - to give ourselves the choice between a barely functioning old workhorse, or a newer model, with more torque, that maybe has a few kinks to work out.

I agree the healthcare system needs to be improved, but it has to be researched and approached cautiously. We don't want to crack a the walls of a dam so our farms receive more water and then discover the end result was the dam breaking and destroying a village.
Ideally we should hold a brainstorming session with the smartest minds in America to organize a list of options which include government and non-government. Then these options should each be tested within small parts of america. Problems and abuses can be identified and either fixed or re-examined. Upon success each option expands into more towns and eventually a city. Upon sucess the option is adopted into the entire state and continues to gradually expand into the rest of America.

Our government taking control of healthcare right now is way too risky.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Wait, out of all of this bickering, you want to vet this statement?

The claim is anecdotal. That is to say, it is only an observation gleaned from my own trials. Don't believe me?

Why so defensive??? I never said I didn't believe you saw it happen somewhere. I make a harmless request and you roll your eyes?

My mistake, I thought actually were trying to form a solid argument with sound reasoning, but it's more just an opinion based on anecdotal emotions and logical fallacies. Your statement(s?) is not much different than someone saying a certain race, gender, religion is far more discriminatory (with the needy) because of their individual experience with "those people". Thanks for sharing....

I am afraid that I did not record the phone calls, nor publish an article about my experience, that I can then reference here.

Which would still be anecdotal evidence and be just as useless... perhaps you're trying to make me laugh. The next time someone calls BS on your negative sweeping generalizations try a different response.

But, thank you for caring about veracity, hopefully at some point you can find something even more meaningful to contribute to the discussion.

Perhaps you could contribute something meaningful to the discussion?

[rdonj]

Pyrostock - I maintain a sincere belief that anecdotal experiences are often underrated, that giving answers that are truthful is a good thing, and that as this is a gaming forum rather than a forum for political debate, we can relax the standards for what's acceptable for a person to post here just a little.

And meanwhile, before you go attacking others, why don't you go and contribute something meaningful to the conversation yourself? Currently jimmorrison's smileys are adding more to the conversation than you are. Thank you and have a nice day.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Pyrostock - I maintain a sincere belief that anecdotal experiences are often underrated, that giving answers that are truthful is a good thing, and that as this is a gaming forum rather than a forum for political debate, we can relax the standards for what's acceptable for a person to post here just a little.

And meanwhile, before you go attacking others, why don't you go and contribute something meaningful to the conversation yourself? Currently jimmorrison's smileys are adding more to the conversation than you are. Thank you and have a nice day.

Thanks for your opinion, but relax. My post was no more of an "attack" than Jimmorrison's initial response to me which you conveniently ignored.

When I saw OT in the thread I falsely assumed it would be similar to those in other turn-based OT forums. I have no desire to further discuss the fallacies of anecdotal experiences. Since this conversation has the more vocal people value anecdotal experiences I will share mine. Of all the charities and "helping the needy" organizations I assisted/worked... none asked/insisted/pushed the needy be a certain religion. Whether it was directly helping someone in need (such as handicap bowlers or soup kitchen) or indirectly such as disaster funds... there were no "enlist in church" sheets, no brimstone&fire pseudo-preachers trying to save to the infidels and no stamps with "DENIED WRONG RELIGION" on them. I will return you to your regularly scheduled smileys...

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

but it still goes to show that even statistics are never objective

Of course statistics can be manipulated like the selection bias with Brooks, but that doesn't make all statistics useless. For good reason, the decisions for countless propositions, the supreme court and the next US president are ultimately decided by the results of some statistics. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!