Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

That's not what I said at all now is it, in fact I said exactly the opposite.
What was that MOL was saying the other day, emo something or other...

Dude, I'm just trying to make sense of your arguments. You said that able bodied people who aren't poor can "get off their ass and take care of themselves."

Yes.
If that means taking a second part time job or doing without wasting hours posting to forums on the internet or other fun things so you can afford the necessities, tough smurf.
If you can't take care of yourself I'm here to help.
If you won't take care of yourself and could, smurf off and die.
I can't make it any clearer I don't think.

Well okay then. Took awhile but you spoke your mind.

It's of course morally bankrupt but at least it's honest. And emblematic of where your country's moral compass is pointed.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Dude, I'm just trying to make sense of your arguments. You said that able bodied people who aren't poor can "get off their ass and take care of themselves."

Yes.
If that means taking a second part time job or doing without wasting hours posting to forums on the internet or other fun things so you can afford the necessities, tough smurf.
If you can't take care of yourself I'm here to help.
If you won't take care of yourself and could, smurf off and die.
I can't make it any clearer I don't think.

Well okay then. Took awhile but you spoke your mind.

It's of course morally bankrupt but at least it's honest. And emblematic of where your country's moral compass is pointed.

My moral bankruptcy or your inherent weakness?
I find nothing nobel about doing for others what they can do for themselves.
It's exactly what leads to the self-centered uncaring weak people we're plagued with.

Pariah wrote:

Must be nice to sit on a high horse and judge who lives and dies.
"They're Lazy" the balm that sooths the conservative conscious.

I said I want to help all those that can't do it for themselves.
Sling all the arrows you want, it only points out your deficiencies.

Farmerkev wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I hope that robust self sufficiecy argument doesn't get taken too far. I'd hate to think what'd happen to infrastructure like roads, bridges, railways, defense, police, fire, etc, not to mention agricultural productivity, if public contribution was subjugated to individual wants.

Of course it can go too far but that applies for BOTH directions.

Well why not apply your standard to all that? Infrastructure, education, utilities, emergency services, the works?

Ribtorus wrote:

Personally, I think investing in public health is at least as vital as roadways etc. It's no more socialist than basic physical infrastructure.

Yeah but you're a lazy bastard, so what do you know?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Of course it can go too far but that applies for BOTH directions.

Well why not apply your standard to all that? Infrastructure, education, utilities, emergency services, the works?

Let's apply yours to truly critical needs, food and shelter.
Does the Canadian gov't deliver groceries to your gov't supplied house or does it only help the needy?
You will die without food and shelter and not maybe but positively will die without them.
Suddenly though I'm a heartless bastard because I want to apply that exact same methodology to health care.

So health care is less essential than, say, high school?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Well why not apply your standard to all that? Infrastructure, education, utilities, emergency services, the works?

Let's apply yours to truly critical needs, food and shelter.
Does the Canadian gov't deliver groceries to your gov't supplied house or does it only help the needy?
You will die without food and shelter and not maybe but positively will die without them.
Suddenly though I'm a heartless bastard because I want to apply that exact same methodology to health care.

So health care is less essential than, say, high school?

Both are less essential that food and shelter.
You won't die without high school.
So go ahead and answer why we don't supply those things for everyone.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Let's apply yours to truly critical needs, food and shelter.
Does the Canadian gov't deliver groceries to your gov't supplied house or does it only help the needy?
You will die without food and shelter and not maybe but positively will die without them.
Suddenly though I'm a heartless bastard because I want to apply that exact same methodology to health care.

So health care is less essential than, say, high school?

Both are less essential that food and shelter.
You won't die without high school.
So go ahead and answer why we don't supply those things for everyone.

I can think of myriad reasons to dismiss your completely fatuous comparison. Care to act like someone older than twelve and come up with a reasonable argument of some kind?

Or you could just answer my question of why it's okay to fund things you won't die for lack of, like high school, but anyone wanting universal health care is bad.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

So health care is less essential than, say, high school?

Both are less essential that food and shelter.
You won't die without high school.
So go ahead and answer why we don't supply those things for everyone.

I can think of myriad reasons to dismiss your completely fatuous comparison. Care to act like someone older than twelve and come up with a reasonable argument of some kind?

Or you could just answer my question of why it's okay to fund things you won't die for lack of, like high school, but anyone wanting universal health care is bad.

I don't want the fed anywhere near education either.
How about instead of calling me names you pony up and tell me why we don't provide food and housing?
No good answer all of a sudden?

I gave an answer.

Food and shelter in the private sector isn't broken. The system works and is well proven.

Healthcare is broken for too many people now and trends indicate it's getting worse.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2007-07-20 7:38 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Both are less essential that food and shelter.
You won't die without high school.
So go ahead and answer why we don't supply those things for everyone.

I can think of myriad reasons to dismiss your completely fatuous comparison. Care to act like someone older than twelve and come up with a reasonable argument of some kind?

Or you could just answer my question of why it's okay to fund things you won't die for lack of, like high school, but anyone wanting universal health care is bad.

I don't want the fed anywhere near education either.
How about instead of calling me names you pony up and tell me why we don't provide food and housing?
No good answer all of a sudden?

If you don't like being called names, I suggest you don't start doing it (i.e. your MoL reference).

But fine, I'll respond to your completely senseless argument. Here we go, ready?

1. 45 million Americans are without health insurance of any kind, including millions of children. I think that is a disastrous situation that needs to be addressed.

2. There is hunger in America, yes, but the equivalent to the health care crisis would be 45 millions in famine conditions. That is not the case.

I therefore don't consider them to be equivalent.

Meanwhile you haven't addressed the fact that the government already provides for a great many costly services like education (for some reason you sidestepped that by saying it's okay for states to do it but not the fed -- does that mean it's okay for states to have socialized medicine if they want to? My guess is you're not thrilled by that idea!). Not to mention roads, bridges, universities, old age pensions.

I dunno, maybe you'd rather live in communist China, which ironically has pretty much zero social safety net: pitiful pensions, no public health insurance, everyone on their own.

Well, it's the provinces that are the health insurer in canada, not the fed. In fact, the fed stays out of the hands-on health game. They also stay out of education, for that matter.

Farmerkev wrote:

Don't act like what he was calling you then because you did start it first, I just replied in kind. I'm not your smurfing whipping boy.
I've never said that 45 million wasn't a terrible problem that needs addressed.
Not once. I do want changes and have outlined them before. Increased taxes and aid for the needy, choice of joining the program or not.
I don't think the Fed has any business suppling many of the expensive programs you seem to think I believe they should.
You keep bringing up education which really only hurts your case. It's done nothing but get worse the more the Fed becomes involved.
I do prefer state and local gov't over the Fed because they are more adaptable and responsive.

Give a successful example of the type of hybrid system you propose. I can give you about a dozen to support the universal approach.
A multipayer/universal system would preserve what is one of the main causes of our current health problems: the HUGE private sector bureaucracy that eats up 30%+ of our healthcare dollars.
Medicare/Medicaid are one of the few shining stars of government programs with extremely low administrative costs. Every single industrialized western country that has implemented universal care serves it's citizens at a significantly lower cost per person than our byzantine private system.

Last edited by Pariah (2007-07-20 11:24 pm)