what's BAD about democracy(for once)?

It "dooms" everybody to take responsibility for their own life. It "dooms" people to not be able to do the moral equivalent of pointing a gun at their neighbours and demanding money. It "dooms" people to have to make their own choices, and to either succeed or not by their own ability.

If someone has cancer 100 miles away from me, it is NOT my responsibility unless I voluntarily choose to accept it.

But what's the use? Self-respect, self-worth, self-responsibility, and integrity are concepts lost in this forum.

i see you didn't deny the fact that private health care just means killing off the poor.

and it is your responsibilty. it is known as human duty.

Cloud, you know its law, that if someone can't pay for medical services, they are to be treated if hospitalization is required. Esspeccially if they are pregnant. From what I understand, the hospital fills out paperwork on these types of incidents, and then recieves subsadies from the gov't.

While I would support a crap level of healthcare on a national level (nothing too lavish: clinics(in tems of bi yearly checkups), prescriptions, emergency) there are so many others whom hold differenet beliefs. I respect thier beleifs, as they do stand on a logical leg. Our argument towards this is pure sediment, with prolly one factual argument - that having widespread basic healthcare would in general, help slow and contain the spread of desieses and possible eppidemics. We do also have free clinics in many cities. So don't think that we are a careless country. The public still does run the governmnet, and such issues of humanities are taken care of here.

I guess, I am partly socialist on some terms, but I would never want to be in a socialistic country. I just think that people should have a leg to stand on and start out with; from there - it's life. Make your decisions and do whatever you want, as you can. Buy a one bedroom appartment, and work 2 days a week at a gas station. Take out mass lioans and become a Doctor then live more labishly. Its a great thing, being free.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i see you didn't deny the fact that private health care just means killing off the poor.

and it is your responsibilty. it is known as human duty.

---

What is duty? How do I have a duty to you?

These are ideas that I think are nice but have been mutilated beyond compare. I love to help people, because I believe in the sanctity of life - and, as a result, the people decided that they have a claim on me because I offered it, once. "The poor", at least, the welfare-check poor, are just like the bums on the street - they ask you for a dime, and if you give them one (in good will) they will continue to come back and demand another from you.

Uh, no.

If you want health care for everyone, then get the hell out of our way, and let us work to full capacity, according to the laws of supply and demand, and we'll have the cheapest damn medicine you'll ever find!

you have a duty to me and everyone else because i am human, just like you, and you are not above me. as a species it is even a genetic duty. as a society it is a social duty to make sure that people don't die stupid deaths.

and alot of people are on welfare due to recovewring from injury or illness, redundancy, personal grieve and problems etc.

Yes, there are people who are legitimately on welfare who would lose out because of this. But within a few years people would learn that they actually have to take responsibility for their actions. For example: Not to have a child without having the resources to take care of them. To put money in the bank instead of buying a new 55" TV, until you actually have some aside in case you lose your job. Being intelligent. And sadly, some people who genuinely can't help their situation will be hurt by this. And those people happen to be poor. If it happened to be the rich who were hurt by this, I'd still support it. It really doesn't matter, because it's right.

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

---

Then let people choose when to give to charity. The Good Samaritan helped the man out of his own generosity and kindness. What you're proposing is forcing everyone to do such - in which case they'd only be following orders rather than giving out of generosity and kindness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

---

What if the man is bald and wants hair? Should I shave off my hair, knowing it'll grow back, and give it to him? What if he doesn't have a watch and takes a liking to mine? Should I give it to him, knowing that I can buy another? What if he doesn't have a house? Should I say "Well, I'm more healthy than he is so I could probably survive sleeping rough longer than he could." and give him my house? It's the same principle.

the thing is it works, so why do people moan? it's fair, reasonable and not biast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

---

Do you remember my story, Cloud, in which I showed why I would be more willing to help someone in a free society as opposed to a socialist regime? Need I point it out again, just to go over it?

WE ARE WILLING TO HELP PEOPLE. You have still missed that point. Anyone who agrees with me is willing to help people. What we don't like is the poor holding a gun on our heads on the basis of our being rich. That we should give it up because someone else has less than us. Every dollar more that I own than someone else does not make me a criminal. I am not getting rich "off of human blood". I am getting rich off of my own personal effort - and whatever government interference gets in the way of that and uses my honest effort for evil is their problem.

I mean, you have to see that we think it's funny how you hate what western civilization is doing to Africa (what with trade barriers and whatnot) and yet fully support another (possibly more brutal) form of governmental interference? At least with Africa, it's open and honest (if not good) - with a socialized health system, all rights will be thrown out in the name of good will.

Sounds disturbing.

I dunno, I see all of this and I still am for a welfare system. Do I think the system we currently impliment is working? no. It needs to be revamped, at least in some states as most welfare is indeed at state level. The thing is, once a person gets down (looses a job, or goes through any other financial harship) it is not just a matter of saying "Oh! mabey I should get a good job" These things take time. I feel that saying that one would donate to charities if they had the free will to do so, over being forced to do so, is a great concept. I just feel that it lacks integrity, and if one wants to help, they would only have the reasources to help at a hardly.

I know, if somthing is free, why work? Why would a bum want to get a job. Well, on a smart system, the welfare would be working to get the man out of his rut, and get him into the workforce reliably. At the moment, most welfare is just handed out in the form of checks, stamps, electronic credit, etc. If there was a government sort of job placement, that was implimented and enforced, I believe this would solve a lot more problems.

On the economical side of things, if a man learns to save and spend, he is a better asset to the economy than if we just let him rot and die. It is a fact that we are importing foreing people to assume jobs that us 'higher standard' Americans are unwilling to do. These people then usually end up working 40+ hours a week AND have to live off welfare. That is what pisses me off. If we are gonna have a welfare system, it should also take care of companies whom do not care for thier employees in the areas of pay and benefits. I do think that any company, with a sufficiant workforce, should liable to at least provide resources to thier employees to find insurance and othe basic safe gaurds.

On that note, we would homless shelters and free clinics are needed to stop the possible accurance of famine in the poor population. A large group of people whom do not have the resources to care for thier health, become a liability to society in the simple fact that they could easily house a staging feild for what could turn out to be an epidemic.

Also, our economy is one that lives on the edge as I see it. Libing on the far edge of credit, as most Americans do, will do nothing but back fire in our face when a recession hits. As it just did, what was supposed to be a small recession, was a quite large one. Its logical, when you think about it. We take into consideration how we are doing at that moment, and project a house loan for 30 years. That is a very bold thing to do, but it is now necessity. That is why I do not belive in large ammounts of credit when they are applied to the laws of supply and demand.

What does this have to do with our discussion? Well now credit is indeed a larger than ever factor in the price of so many things. Yes it is easier to sell an item for more, when it is broken into payments. You can look at the people on welfare, and obviously they won't have much credit going for them at these rough points (might I add that a lot of decent jobs out there run credit checks when they concider hiring you), so that will limit thier ability to get a house, car, or any other moderate need when they do start heading somewhere.

Also with our supply and demand chain, it would not be feasable to just let 'donations to charity' basically replace welfare. Due to the tight fiscal life styles that people live, they would have more money to spend, thus more (basic need and luxury) items would get more expensive thus actually backfireing any need to help people. I mean, if the average person saved 5000 dollars a year, they would obviously spend it on things they either need or don't. Either way, the ammount of money in thier pocketbook would be higher, and a smart buisness man would learn that he has that much more potential for earning a larger profit on his goods. Enter more inflation.

In closing, I just think that it is VERY important that we try making ourselves, and others better. By making those whom are 'poorer' than ourselves, we gain a sence of humainty, and also will eventually reap the profits of a better society, and economy. I hope my point of view doesn't have too many cavets in it, and that it sheds a little bit of a different prespective on things.

Bipper

You're absolutely right when our system needs to be revamped. I'm talking, however, about changing the entire system altogether, not just making it into some social nonsense.

I will note, that I do not advocate "donating to charity". I think you should be free to do so, if you so wish. However, I am referring to loosening up everywhere. People need to learn how to save and spend? Stop making getting a job difficult, back away, and let people find a job easier. I mean, I just got a job at a damn fast food restaraunt, and I can tell you I've been going through hell; I need to sign papers stating this and that, verify this and that over and over again, etc.

People tell me that I am overly idealistic, and I admit that my ideas aren't as concrete as I would like, but then, I don't know how to fill all of the "cavaets" and whatnot. But I can tell you this: you do not fix a destroyed building by toppling it. We cannot help "our society", or more importantly, the free individual by giving them money looted from others. We need to create a system where he is free to work - that's our problem, as of now. We don't fix what government intervention is screwing up by plunging more government intervention into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

I will note, that I do not advocate "donating to charity". I think you should be free to do so, if you so wish. However, I am referring to loosening up everywhere. People need to learn how to save and spend? Stop making getting a job difficult, back away, and let people find a job easier. I mean, I just got a job at a damn fast food restaraunt, and I can tell you I've been going through hell; I need to sign papers stating this and that, verify this and that over and over again, etc.

---

/signed

There needs to be far less concern about documentation and beaurocracy. Additionally, if there are going to be any forms of governmental interference in getting people into work, how about helping people get into their first jobs? Without at least some experience it's hard to get pretty much anything.

socialised health care is not a form of democracy. and in fact it touches the wealth of noone as all implenting it would do is remove the purpose of health insurance. and if people started having less money then inflation slows down anyway and people catch up.

watching america and the eu starve africa is not comparable.

and psychotic. comparing hair to death is not the same. it is not a want. it is a right and need.