I’m very sorry for your situation. Obviously it’s the anonymous internet and I know nothing about your specifics, so I’m not sure what I could say. I’ve seen you post in other forums, asking about growing vegetables to save money, etc, so I know you’re serious and not merely taking a position.
In my opinion, our social safety net is pretty good. It’s obviously a balancing act; for every broomstick who falls through the cracks, there are many others who look to take advantage of the largesse of the taxpayer, laying about and not being productive, etc. Where to draw the line?
Yes, the underlying “lesson” is valid. People in government should consider the cost of implementing something. When I think of pork barrels, special interests, even legitimate concerns (and “legitimate” can vary wildly from person to person), government is unique in that they have the authority to set their own budgets and reallocate money. So, what I’m saying is, they can take care of the funding. They just don’t sometimes. I believe in UHC, I think it can be done. I think it should be done. However I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel when we can learn from other countries UHC systems (what works and what doesn’t work), and we COULD afford it with money that is already there. It’s about prioritizing, and smart management (both administrating and financial backing). Unfortunately, politics is all about sound bites and posturing.
Sorry, I misunderstood then. I thought you were saying that nobody holds that belief.
Of course liberals would never admit to holding a belief like that; that would make them evil, even monsters. It would be like a conservative proclaiming that he/she’s racist, wants the underclass to be exterminated/lockedup/used for scientific experiments. But many, even most, conservatives think that many liberals do believe in keeping the poor on the plantation, much like liberals think conservatives hate the poor and want them to starve, (or to bring us back to the OP, that Bunning wants to actually kill seniors).
I think are better comparisons. Something like the Southern Strategy. I can come up with a conservative proclaiming he is racist. Surely some liberal would be on the record somewhere admitting what you claim. Hell, I would even accept a youtube or Yahoo answers post. This is a big internet.
I wonder if you have an factual evidence for this remarkable statement that the proportion of people who take advantage of the system is larger than those who genuinely use the system to lift themselves up.
I’m not saying that there are NO people who take avantage wrongly. I just dispute your “one vs. many others” proportion.
There’s your problem. I’m not trying to make an argument; I don’t take you seriously enough for that. I’m just taking potshots for my personal amusement.
Pretty sure I could find, with a few deft moves of “Google-Fu,” someone claiming that the Zionist plot for world domination is being funded by black market cupcakes crafted from the swarthy foreskins of Palestinian infants. Of course, *they *would deny it…
Ah, OK, no problem. Of course, you’ll forgive me for assuming that you *don’t *want to look like a complete idiot. I have now disabused myself of that notion, so please carry on.
My claim was that there are many people who think as I suggested. I produced several instances of that. Are there liberals who admit that on the interweb? I’m sure there are, and if you’re looking for my permission to seek them out, you got it.
That’s a fair point, and after further review, I can see that my post was written very clumsily, one foot out of bounds, etc.
I don’t know the proportion of those truly in need vs those looking for the free ride, and I won’ t have time to track it down today.
(as an aside: WTF how do some of you have 20k+ posts… do you not have jobs or families? )
So let the record reflect that we both agree that some people truly need the help, and some are looking to slack off. And I suspect that we both agree that we need some kind of system that maximizes the former and minimizes the latter. And since no system is perfect, there will be some truly in need who get that assistance cut off, and some slackers who are able to game the system for years. And finally, I will make a prediction that the conservatives will use an anecdotal example of the latter to shatter the safety net, and the liberals will use an anecdotal example of the former to try to move the country towards a more socialist-Western European model.
The WaPo editorial today performsthe post mortem of this recent Bunning episode. They say that of course it was bad politics. But from a policy perspective… hmmm
(snip)
Please keep in mind, the Washington Post editorial board is to the left of most of the posters on this site. It seems that deficit hawkery is coming into fashion on both sides of the aisle.
No, I disagree - while there are some who game the system and take advantage, there are more who fall through the cracks. Those of us who are bleeding outnumber the welfare queens. That’s what allows the draconian system of so-called aid to continue, the belief that the majority of people on aid are living some sort of lush lifestyles and we aren’t. That majority of people in poverty are miserable, and the belief that somehow we are all lay-abouts allows the rest of society to spit on us and kick us when we’re down without guilt. I’m tired of being told that I’m somehow the exception when my own experience directly contradicts this. Nor am I referring to my own current experience - I have worked with shelters and soup kitchens and the like for a couple decades, back when I had money and resources to spare, and I met damn few “welfare queens”. I don’t deny they exist, but they are the MINORITY, not the majority as you implied.
And my claim is you are completely making that up until you can show otherwise. You do not find it curious that you ascribe this nefarious, Machiavellian practice to liberals, yet cannot come up with even one example? You just have a sneaking suspicion that’s what liberals think? Unreal.
)