OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Demosthenes:
It's important to note that the opposite of anti-abortion is not necessarily pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

One may disapprove of abortion but still believe that private citizens have a right to choose what's is best for them. Which I believe is Kerry's stance. And probably the most libertarian approach.

Well said.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Why don't you take a look at Canada, where better health care than what is available in the U.S. (30th in the world vs. 38th), costs 57% as much per person.

You or myself have no idea what method of complete healthcare will be placed and the overall outcome... Canadian style or something. Personally I view it as not worth the risk for raising my taxes on something which may be better for the USA. This gamble is not worth the risk.

quote:

---

Another bad reason for government healthcare is we would never be able to go back.

Why would you want to go back?

---

Paying less taxes and giving people reasons for not being lazy. Like many others I choose to decide how my money is spent and give as little to the government as possible. And if our government makes a huge financial mistake with trying to provide healthcare for everyone it could easily do great damage to our economy and no way to go back.

If they pay American taxes, or are U.S. citizens, then the American government should support them. Your strawman about other countries is meaningless, since they are not U.S. taxpayers or citizens.

Earlier you were saying the moral thing to do is help everyone... now you're saying only those which are american citizens. I don't believe our government has the wisdom to provide an effective healthcare system for everyone since it cannot even handle the growing national debt.

Lets see... there are millions without any healthcare which would be going to the hospitals if they could...

Don't quote partial/incomplete sentences... which miss the main point. I could easily use the same quote for if the U.S. was to give a Universal Healthcare for all nations.

whether or not its needed.

There are thousands which abuse the generosity from America and other governments. Example= My cousin helped a woman move groceries which used food stamps. The groceries were going into a shiny expensive BMW. Despite your mind reading beliefs... I have no ill thoughts to those less fortunate.

I can't believe that you are seriously making an argument that it's a _good_ thing that people are going without medical treatment.

And thus I ask again... why not have the USA provide a Universal Healthcare for all nations!

Example=
Will people start giving more blood with the new healthcare system to help provide the supplies needed for Y amount of people?? Take a guess!

I don't have to guess. The blood supply in Canada is completely voluntary, Canadian Blood Services is a government agency that is responsible for collecting blood, and guess what, we have adequate, though sometimes low blood supplies just like the U.S.

It's not like the U.S. has doctors and nurses just sitting around bored. Heck it takes me 5 months before I can make my next doctors appointment after each visit... any cancelation means waiting another 5 months. The taxes could be as high as what switzerland is paying or may not be.... but not worth the gamble.

[ July 26, 2004, 23:47: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Thanks for admitting that your statement that you save money with private healthcare was incorrect.

Untrue. I generally eschew unnecessary treatments. After all, I have to pay for this crap out of my own pocket, and if I feel fine, I don't need healthcare. The problem with even more nationalized healthcare is the extremely galling notion that somebody, somewhere, who I couldn't give a rat's *** about, is wasting my money on frivolous treatment for diseases and injuries that *I* would have simply ignored! Ignore it, and it will go away...one way or another. This saves me a lot of money! If you didn't live in a nanny-state, you could try this! Have some sort of problem? Ignore it! The human body is surprisingly resilient and often self-repairing, provided you allow it to do so, rather than crippling its ability to cope by seeking unnecessary treatment.

You're still alive, and I doubt that you are more than 20 years old given your demonstrated maturity level and amount of free time.

You'd be surprised how much free-time you get once you're retired...which is, after all, the entire point of being retired.

I've snipped the rest of your meandering bull**** where you demonstrate, once again, that you are barely a member of humanity thanks to your complete lack of empathy.

Barely, eh? So I still qualify. Good to hear. Complete lack of empathy, eh? Not so. I simply can't bring myself to feel sorry for miserable slackers who can't be bothered to take responsibility for even themselves. You don't see me expecting you to pay for MY healthcare, and I suspect I'll have need of this sooner than you will....but I planned this. If I can't afford it, well, I'll just die. Dying's cheaper, anyway. Why's this such a problem? People these days have such an annoying hang-up about the concept of dying, as if they were somehow entitled to live forever, long after you, yourself, are incapable of supporting your own existence. News for you: Nobody lives forever. If you can't afford to even support your own continued existence, why should I be compelled to do so? If you want charity, you can always take up e-begging. I hear electronic panhandling is all the rage these days. But you know what? Beggars at least earn their handouts honestly, taking them from the people who want to give to them. Can't fault them for that.

[ July 26, 2004, 23:24: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Norfleet]

dp

[ July 26, 2004, 23:25: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
I don't believe our government has the wisdom to provide an effective healthcare system for everyone since it cannot even handle the growing national debt.

Since you are such a big supporter of all things Republican, I find it most hypocritical that you should cite the rising national debt, something that has traditionally exploded under Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) that are staunch believers in deficit spending and letting future generations worry about the problems caused by their populist policies of tax breaks (for rich people & corporations) and warmongering.

[archaeolept]

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the average western European pays like 50 to 60 percent of his income in taxes, in order to pay for all the socialized services. In America, it's like 20 to 30 percent I think

lol vigabrand

OECD figures for 1999, which measure total tax burden as a percentage of total economic output, have the US at 14.2%. Sweden is the second highest, at 21.7%, but Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Japan... all have lower overall tax burdens

and yet, somehow, they all manage to have universal health care. who'd a thunk it.

http://www.taxpayer.com/Facts/Intern...omparisons.pdf

[Frosted Flake]

Your answer Arch is the US milatary. It consumes alot of money (not saying that its a good thing just a fact). As for Arryn thinking all Republicans thinking alike where did that come from? I am a conservative Republican...I believe in balanced budgets,conserving the environment,preserving our country's (and the world's) freedoms. I want to know how the biblethumping southern democrats took over my party? I also want to know how middle America can back Bush after Iraq. Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield and the idiots who authorized torture in iraq have sullied the honor of the world's finest milatary..in the name of expediency.

frosted flake

[daesthai]

I'm not very adept at using the quote system here, so please be patient, but I've gotta step in on the Catholic stuff here. Without trying to pour gas on the fire, let me just point out a couple of misplaced arguments...

There is a sense in these postings that it is expected that Catholics are required to blindly follow and believe in exactly what the Holy See (ie - the Pope and Vatican City) says. I have to take exception to that. Yes, there is an expectation to follow scripture, tradition, and canon law. My exception is in the thought that it is happening "blindly". The church strongly encourages study to promote understading the "why's" and "how's" of the belief system. It's not the fault of the church if people jump on or off the bandwagon with no knowledge of why they're doing something.

But going on with the topic of following the Popes commands and teachings - a person either agrees with and follows the Catholic faith or they don't. No one is being FORCED to do anything. But if a person claims to be Catholic, they agree to follow its precepts. And there is concern in the Catholic church currently regarding people taking a "pick and choose" mentality toward which teachings they agree to follow and which they don't.

True - Mankind has judgement and freewill (speaking on the whole, not politically) and not everyone agrees with everything the Pope says. But if a person does not follow the teachings of canon law and the Catholic faith, then, by the church's standards, that person is not living a Catholic life.

Before someone gets offended, I'm NOT making an arguement for whether or not Catholicism is "correct", I'm NOT saying non-Catholics are bad people, and I'm NOT equating morality with Catholicism. There are very good and moral people who disagree with certain Catholic teachings. But my point is that by claiming to be a Catholic, a person is saying that he follows Catholic teachings and holds Catholic values.

Sure, it's possible to disagree with the Holy See - that's how Protestantism and it's various denominations came about. Martin Luther was a Catholic who disagreed with some of the views so he created his own church to meet his value needs. John Calvin and Joseph Smith did the same thing. They didn't agree with what they were being taught, so they broke away on their own. The point being - if someone disagrees with the Catholic church, why would they WANT to associate themselves with it and continue to name themselves as Catholic? It's not possible to HONESTLY say "I'm a Catholic....except for the parts about abortion, sex, and marriage".

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

[ July 26, 2004, 23:56: Message edited by: daesthai ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by daesthai:
To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

I concur. Isn't the entire point of being a member of said religion that you share that religion's beliefs? Because if you don't, obviously, you're not really a member....unless you somehow just like having the label for whatever benefit you can gain from it, without having to actually be bound by the obligations of said title. I suspect the only real claim some of them have to being "Catholic" is starting out born that way. For instance, I tend to completely disagree with many Catholic views. Thus, I am not a member, and do not claim to be one.

[daesthai]

Thanks Norfleet. You were able to state a bit more concisely the point I was trying to make.