Guns or Health Care?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Blalron]
What, specifically, is so evil about using tax dollars to help sick people?
[/QUOTE]
Everything.

If you’re sick, and you can’t afford to go to the doctor, you have options:

  1. Family.
  2. Charity.
  3. Church.

Now I know what you’re thinking. “Charity? Church? Family? Yea, right. What if they can’t handle all the needs of the sick?” Well here’s what you’re forgetting: if people weren’t taxed for this stuff to begin with, people would have more money to give to charities and churches. Besides, we are a *very * generous culture, more so than any other culture on earth. If charities become overloaded, people ***will ** * help.

But… when it comes down to it, it’s ultimately an question of freedom. You can have a free country or a socialistic country, but not both.

42

Why do we have to have one without the other? I support the right to bear arms. I also think our health care system needs reforming. Why are those positions incompatible?

43

[QUOTE=Chefguy]
I’m continually bemused by “fiscal conservatives” who oppose universal health care as a waste of tax dollars. What do these folks think happens when those who can’t afford health care when younger end up having chronic problems later on? That’s right, since we don’t marginalize our citizens, they become giant burdens to the taxpayer in the form of medicare and other social care programs.
[/QUOTE]
I expect that what most of them would do to “solve” such problems is eliminate medicare and everything else resembling a social safety net. Like Crafter_Man wants, let the sick who aren’t rich die; that’s how these people think.

Conservativism is simply a polite term for greed and malice. Every time some random person dies because they can’t afford medical care, that’s a victory for the Republicans; they are the party of evil, pure and simple. They represent everything that is bad in America, and nothing that is good. I would never vote for one.

As for gun rights, those are just a distraction. they are the most irrelevant of rights, because if it comes down to violence the government can crush you like an insect any time it wants, guns or not. People are encouraged to get excited about guns so they won’t get excited about something that might inconvenience the powerful.

44

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
Besides, we are a *very * generous culture, more so than any other culture on earth. If charities become overloaded, people ***will ** * help.
[/QUOTE]
Garbage. America is one of the least generous countries on Earth. We are full of people who think the weak and helpess deserve suffering and death.

45

I want freedom too. Freedom from the possibility of being ruined just because I get in a car wreck or something. Freedom to change jobs without having to have no health coverage while I’m waiting for the new poicy to kick in. Freedom to get health coverage if I happen to have a pre-existing condition.

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
I understand taxation for *general * needs (e.g. the building of roads), but IMO it is immoral to use the police power of government to force people - at gunpoint - to give their property to someone else for their own, *specific * needs.
[/QUOTE]

You’re already being taxed ‘at gunpoint’. Why have a police department? People should take the law into their own hands. If they catch the bad guy, good for them. If they don’t, then it’s their own look out. Why should we have fire departments? It’s not my house that’s burning! I’ll never use 99% of the roads in this country. Why should I have to pay for them, since I have no specific need for them?

Health care does serve the general needs of the country, as I pointed out in the other thread before this one went off track. Preventative health care reduceds costs down the line. That’s a good thing. It keeps people productive longer. Productive workers make productive companies. Productive companies tend to pay more than unproductive ones, so people have more money to spend and the government has more money to support the needs of the People. Removing the burden of paying for health care from companies makes them more competitive, so more Americans can have jobs that might otherwise go overseas. And they’ll spend their money here. Universal coverage is good for the country.

46

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I expect that what most of them would do to “solve” such problems is eliminate medicare and everything else resembling a social safety net. Like Crafter_Man wants, let the sick who aren’t rich die; that’s how these people think.

Conservativism is simply a polite term for greed and malice. Every time some random person dies because they can’t afford medical care, that’s a victory for the Republicans; they are the party of evil, pure and simple. They represent everything that is bad in America, and nothing that is good. I would never vote for one.

As for gun rights, those are just a distraction. they are the most irrelevant of rights, because if it comes down to violence the government can crush you like an insect any time it wants, guns or not. People are encouraged to get excited about guns so they won’t get excited about something that might inconvenience the powerful.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose that somewhere in this screed there is a fact, but I am unable to identify it through all the bile, hatred, and pointless rhetoric.

47

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
Why do we have to have one without the other? I support the right to bear arms. I also think our health care system needs reforming. Why are those positions incompatible?
[/QUOTE]

Heh. A little late for the OP, given the direction this thread has taken. What I was getting at was that I think it’s better for the Democrats to back off gun control if it gets them more votes to pass UHC. (Or for the Republicans to do the opposite, if that’s what you believe.) At this stage though, all bets are off.

48

I submit to you that Europe is free. In some ways, not so much (eg, guns) but in other ways, more free (eg, I can walk down the street in London drinking a beer). But free nonetheless.

It still tinkers with my head a little bit that the Framers in drafting the Constitution went so far as to determine that delivery of mail was a vital function of the Federal government. I can only wonder if the Framers were here, today, informed by the advances in our economy and technology, whether they’d choose to designate the delivery of health care instead of delivery of mail as being an issue of Constitutional importance. My uninformed guess is that they would not see it as an issue of freedom, but an issue of making the country work smoothly.

49

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I expect that what most of them would do to “solve” such problems is eliminate medicare and everything else resembling a social safety net. Like Crafter_Man wants, let the sick who aren’t rich die; that’s how these people think.
[/QUOTE]
#1 People dying because they can’t afford health care is horrible and abhorrent.

#2 The government robbing Peter to pay Paul is horrible and abhorrent.

We can agree that both of the above are horrible and abhorrent. But they are different. #1 is the result of unfortunate circumstances; it is not the direct result of people committing crimes or infringing upon the rights of others. By contrast, #2 is the result of direct criminal behavior (theft of property) and the infringement of rights.

So which is the lesser of two evils? My vote is #1.

50

It’s NOT theft of property! You’re simply paying for things from which you receive benefits.

51

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
It’s NOT theft of property! You’re simply paying for things from which you receive benefits.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s true, why do I need the government as a middle man? Why can’t I make direct payments to the services I’m using?

The basic issue here is one of liberty vs. government intrusion into your life. How much liberty do you want? How much government intrusion do you want? You ***can’t * ** have both… the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.

Most people today want a small amount of freedom along and a healthy dose of government intrusion. I am an oddball; I want more liberty and less government. I would rather have *more * liberty - along with the increasing crime, sickness, and homelessness that might accompany it - than *less * liberty and less crime, sickness, and homelessness.

52

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
If that’s true, why do I need the government as a middle man? Why can’t I make direct payments to the services I’m using?
[/QUOTE]

Do you pay a toll every time you get on a road? And pay another toll when you make a turn? Would you pay the fire department directly? (‘You have to pay before we’ll put the fire out.’ ‘But my credit cards are inside!’)

I think you need to define ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. You keep saying those words, but what is it specifically that you want?

53

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Do you pay a toll every time you get on a road? And pay another toll when you make a turn? Would you pay the fire department directly? (‘You have to pay before we’ll put the fire out.’ ‘But my credit cards are inside!’)
[/quote]

As a matter of fact, if you consider balance of payments, that’s exactly what you do. I wouldn’t care to do everything under a pay-as-you-go model, but if that’s what he wants I don’t necessarily take issue with that.

I think he has quite capably expressed what he wants. Extreme? Sure. But not all that unusual depending upon region. It’s not surprising that some people would find it batshit crazy, because it is the total antithesis of what people perceive to be a modern, liberal society.

Different strokes for different folks, know what I mean?

54

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
As a matter of fact, if you consider balance of payments, that’s exactly what you do.
[/quote]

So how is health care any different? Why single it out if it all balances anyway? It makes more sense to pay to a general fund that to have everyone pay individually to a thousand things.

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
I think he has quite capably expressed what he wants.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think so. Liberty to do what? What is being infringed upon?

55

And on that note, time to pack it in for the night. If I’m not back tomorrow night, then it will probably be Friday.

56

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
So how is health care any different? Why single it out if it all balances anyway? It makes more sense to pay to a general fund that to have everyone pay individually to a thousand things.
[/quote]

Because we pay whether we use it or not. Imagine that you bought my lunch for 5 years in anticipation of you being short one day so I can pay you back, and that day never comes. Of course I’ll thank you for the fine meals, but that still leaves you out of a boatload of money that was yours.

That’s the objection. Call it selfish if you want, but in the same way that you would tell me to go to hell if I demanded to drive your MGB, the money we earn is ours and the government should take as little of it as possible. Crafter_Man simply doesn’t want to subsidize others, or be subsidized by others, at least to the minimum extent possible. The government takes your money and while it may return some of it to you in services they are still subsidizing others.

Perhaps Crafter_Man has the ability to live like that. Few people do. But that’s the rub, and it’s a reasonable one.

Your right to spend your money on what you see fit to spend it on, rather than what the government spends it on on your behalf.

57

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
In this scenario I’d vote for the Republican, no question at all. RTKBA is a sacred right
[/QUOTE]
Like Jesus said: “Let those among you who are without sin loose the first volley” and “blessed are the armed”.

You guys scare me.

58

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
#1 People dying because they can’t afford health care is horrible and abhorrent.

#2 The government robbing Peter to pay Paul is horrible and abhorrent.

We can agree that both of the above are horrible and abhorrent. But they are different. #1 is the result of unfortunate circumstances; it is not the direct result of people committing crimes or infringing upon the rights of others. By contrast, #2 is the result of direct criminal behavior (theft of property) and the infringement of rights.

So which is the lesser of two evils? My vote is #1.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because like the typical libertarian, you have no problem at all with the death of millions if you can save a few dollars. And you are willing to spend far more than you save oppressing and killing the lower classes in order to keep them from demanding that you pay your fair share instead of feeding off of them. You libertarians are not interested in any rights but property rights, because to you the lives and suffering of others mean nothing.

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
If that’s true, why do I need the government as a middle man? Why can’t I make direct payments to the services I’m using?
[/quote]
Because society would fall apart, and you’d be driven into poverty the first time you were faced with a major expense you must pay and can’t, like medical care after an accident. Paying for every last little service individually would not only suck up far more time, but cost far more; ever hear of economies of scale ?

Eliminate the government services you hate so much, and you end up with Iraq or some other failed state.

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
The basic issue here is one of liberty vs. government intrusion into your life. How much liberty do you want? How much government intrusion do you want? You ***can’t * ** have both… the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.
[/quote]
That the standard libertarian delusion, that government is the enemy of liberty, and the only one.

The only reason you have liberty at all is the government. Without it, you are at the mercy of anyone with more money or numbers or brutality than you. You aren’t arguing for liberty; you are arguing for the destruction of freedom and the imposition of a plutocracy or warlordism, whether you intend to or not.

How is being forced to do degrading or dangerous things by someone with money because the alternative is starvation or otherwise dying due to a lack of money liberty ? How is having your life ruined by anyone with more money or power than you liberty ? How is being worked to eath liberty ? How is having some corporation determine everything you do and wear and say ( whcih is what they do when they can get away with it) liberty ? You and those like you are the enemies of liberty, not it’s champions.

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Crafter_Man** simply doesn’t want to subsidize others, or be subsidized by others, at least to the minimum extent possible. The government takes your money and while it may return some of it to you in services they are still subsidizing others.
[/QUOTE]
No, he’s being heavily subsidized, or he wouldn’t have that money, nor would that money have the value it does. Just by being raised in and living in this society, he benefits. What he wants is to be a parasite.

59

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Broadly speaking, Republicans support the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms and Democrats do not; Democrats favour Universal Health Coverage and Republicans do not.

So let’s say you have two candidates: The Republican will work hard to guarantee that your RTKBA will not be infringed, but has stated that s/he absolutely will not support a ‘Socialist’ agenda by working toward UHC; and the Democrat will strive to ban certain types of firearms, but will do everything possible to secure UHC.

What’s more important to you?
[/QUOTE]

I’d support the Democrat. First of all, the Democrat supports universal health care, which would save a lot of innocent lives. Secondly, the Democrat supports gun control, which also saves a lot of innocent lives. It’s a pretty easy choice, assuming that you want innocent people to live out their natural life spans.

60

[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
Everything.

If you’re sick, and you can’t afford to go to the doctor, you have options:

  1. Family.
  2. Charity.
  3. Church.

Now I know what you’re thinking. “Charity? Church? Family? Yea, right. What if they can’t handle all the needs of the sick?” Well here’s what you’re forgetting: if people weren’t taxed for this stuff to begin with, people would have more money to give to charities and churches. Besides, we are a *very * generous culture, more so than any other culture on earth. If charities become overloaded, people ***will ** * help.

But… when it comes down to it, it’s ultimately an question of freedom. You can have a free country or a socialistic country, but not both.
[/QUOTE]

And you apparently have some notion that charities and churches get their funding by picking handsful of cash off the money trees out back? While donations make up a portion of operating capital, food and other care programs are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. And in the Republican vision of corporate fascist Amerika, churches would also be funded by the government.