Health Care Reform Defeated

If you can think that IN THEORY the goverment is there to serve the people.
you elect them, they must work for you.
you should have the right to demand the taxes you paid are used to protect your people.
the politicians should be working for you.
 
mallory knox said:
If you can think that IN THEORY the goverment is there to serve the people.
you elect them, they must work for you.
you should have the right to demand the taxes you paid are used to protect your people.
the politicians should be working for you.
Click to expand...


True.
It's a shame though, even the most well intentioned often lose sight of who they work for after a period of time.

I think the late MN Senator Paul Wellstone would be the exception though.
Even those that had a polar opposite political views still respected him for not compromising his core beliefs and values.
 
mallory knox said:
If you can think that IN THEORY the goverment is there to serve the people.
you elect them, they must work for you.
you should have the right to demand the taxes you paid are used to protect your people.
the politicians should be working for you.
Click to expand...
By that same thinking, you have the right to demand the taxes you pay are not used to protect people
 
mallory knox said:
then what would they be used for?

why would you even need the goverment then?
Click to expand...
I'm just saying, when you said "If you can think that IN THEORY the goverment is there to serve the people.
you elect them, they must work for you.
you should have the right to demand the taxes you paid are used to protect your people.
the politicians should be working for you." By the same principle, if the people can tell the government how to spend their tax money to help people, they can tell the government not to spend their tax money in such a way. There would still be need for a government. What you're arguing is a slippery slope.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong; I'm merely stating that it goes both ways.
 
article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights:


  • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
 
mallory knox said:
article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights:


  • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not trying to argue here, I was just pointing out there is more than one way to look at the ideology you presented.

People will argue the interpretation of what you just quoted. They'll say, yes everyone has a right to it, but it doesn't say it has to be supplied to them. Simply that they have the right to access it.

Once again, I'm not trying to argue or choose sides. I'm just pointing out that things aren't black and white.
 
well, according to my understanding, when they say everyone they mean everyone. Not just those who can afford it.

when they say security in the event of unemployment and sickness, i would assume that also includes the security that you'll remain alive and healthy in case of unemployment or sickness.

the declaration of human rights also mentions that everyone has the right to live and it's everyone's obligation to maintain a spirit of brotherhood to make sure everyone gets their rights.

so it seems pretty obvious the way I interpret it.
 
It also says people have the right to property. Yada yada yada, it's interpretation.

Also might I quote article one "...they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"

Not that they are obliged to. It's not as clear cut as you're trying to make it.

Hospitals have write off cases for the poor in need of life or death operations, btw...
 
What would possibly give you the idea that the US cares at all about international rules? To paraphrase Dave Chapelle.... "Oh...the UN doesn't want us to go into Iraq? Well, I guess they'll have to stop us with all their guns...oh wait, they don't have guns? Hmmmm....it sounds like they need to just...shut the fuck up."
 
I don't think they do care, I sort of think they.... should?
 
BickByro said:
One more detail I'm confused on:

Billy, you came from a fatherless, drug-addled family of white people who lived in the projects and all ended up becoming millionaires?
Click to expand...

If that's what you got from my posting, you need to reread.
 
Billy said:
If you are in a limited community and one of the only ways to get ahead is to sell drugs then I say sell em. The Drug war is BS anyway. More people are addicted to legal doctor prescribed crap anyway. Ohhh but that's ok it came form a doctor. Meanwhile our prisons are filled with guys busted for having weed, in with real criminals.
Click to expand...

Knew we would agree on something! Let's provide weed to everyone through universal healthcare!
 
HaHa said:
Knew we would agree on something! Let's provide weed to everyone through universal healthcare!
Click to expand...

Weed is a luxury why would I want my tax dollars to pay for it? Especially since it will just turn the pot dealers in the inner city into crack dealers.
 
Billy said:
Weed is a luxury why would I want my tax dollars to pay for it? Especially since it will just turn the pot dealers in the inner city into crack dealers.
Click to expand...

Supply and demand. The crack demand is basically being met. The weed demand is not being properly met because of people worried about the illegality, and because of the price that is artificially inflated by the "risk cost" at every step of "production". Unless you're suggesting that pot dealers in the inner city have NOWHERE else to turn besides another drug to sell. But then your arguing against this because it disenfranchises drug dealers. Is that really your issue?
 
HaHa said:
Supply and demand. The crack demand is basically being met. The weed demand is not being properly met because of people worried about the illegality, and because of the price that is artificially inflated by the "risk cost" at every step of "production". Unless you're suggesting that pot dealers in the inner city have NOWHERE else to turn besides another drug to sell. But then your arguing against this because it disenfranchises drug dealers. Is that really your issue?
Click to expand...

If the government was handing out weed for free, well not free it would be paid for by those who pay taxes, then the profit incentive for selling it dies. Crack, meth, shrooms, heroin, and other drugs would fill its role. Just like when you go to a place where weed has been cracked down on, say Florida, you cant get weed but you can get a hell of a lot of heroin, coke, or meth. Because the cops are busting pot dealers and not the guys selling that stuff.

I think weed acts as a more harmless barrier if you leave it out of the governments hands and let people deal with it privately.

And there isnt much "risk" factor up here in the northeast, its basically legal at this point and the cops arent looking for pot dealers. So the price isnt that bad the only thing you are paying for is your spot in the dealer food chain.
 
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"President Obama's health care vision is confusing. It may also bankrupt the nation. And that does not sound smart to me. The American people do not want to invest trillions of dollars in a big government program that is confusing. That would be insane."

Bill O'Reilly on the August 20 edition of The O'Reilly Factor
clear.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top