MT conseratives: can you vote for any of the (R) candidates and still sleep at night.

my2hands

MLC2006 wrote:

I support the idea of social darwinism. you see what you need to survive, and you work for it. if you don't, then you don't survive. if there is a service that is limited -which quality healthcare is- then you work for it, or you don't get it. is that hard to understand?

no help for your fellow man in need?


thats a shame... have fun in life... i hope you never need a neighbors helping hand


peace out

MLC2006

my2hands wrote:

no help for your fellow man in need?


thats a shame... have fun in life... i hope you never need a neighbors helping hand


peace out

no, all my neighbors work their way through life just like I do. I'm always glad to help a "neighbor", but I don't have 300 million "neighbors". there are "neighbors" and then there are "dead beats". I believe in first helping those who help themselves, and those who would help me when I need help. I DON'T believe in helping those who bring nothing to the table. that's the difference. but hey, it doesn't "take a village" to raise my child either, I do that myself.

thanks, I do try to have fun in life. have fun on your commune.

stupidcorporatewhore

MLC2006 wrote:

I know full well what the meaning of the term is, as do you. if the countries you named have socialized healthcare, then that is indeed ONE aspect in which they are socialists. maybe the democratic candidates should move to one of those countries and run for president there. and wtf is "oreillys"?

we are the only first world country without state supported, public, universal, or if you perfer the more misleading slanderous term "socialized" medicine. That is a crime by anyone's standards and by not demanding it you allign yourself with a lot of bad people against 47 million uninsured Americans. Our public school system runs on this model as well would you like us to scrap it as well?

your choice, clearly you are voting Republican (or possibly for Hillary, "health care" companies financed her senate campain).

oh, and when I said "oreillys on" I should have said "O'reilly is on".

that'd be what I assume is your favorie fox "news" show, the O'reilly Factor

slightofjeff

we are the only first world country without state supported, public, universal, or if you perfer the more misleading slanderous term "socialized" medicine. That is a crime by anyone's standards and by not demanding it you allign yourself with a lot of bad people against 47 million uninsured Americans. Our public school system runs on this model as well would you like us to scrap it as well?

I agree with you, to a point. But on the other hand, why should I be forced to pay for someone else's insurance? I paid to go to college, I work my ass off to pay for my own health care. Why can't other people do the same?

I don't mind giving to a charity. But I tend to bristle when my charity is forced, metaphorically speaking, at gun point.

And I also wonder if government-run medical care will be substandard. In my experience, everything the government touches turns substandard.

So now, I'm paying for health care that is worse than what I had before. That sounds like no fun, too.

But I would be interested to hear how it works in other countries, and if it works.

stupidcorporatewhore

slightofjeff wrote:

I agree with you, to a point. But on the other hand, why should I be forced to pay for someone else's insurance? I paid to go to college, I work my ass off to pay for my own health care. Why can't other people do the same?

I don't mind giving to a charity. But I tend to bristle when my charity is forced, metaphorically speaking, at gun point.

And I also wonder if government-run medical care will be substandard. In my experience, everything the government touches turns substandard.

So now, I'm paying for health care that is worse than what I had before. That sounds like no fun, too.

But I would be interested to hear how it works in other countries, and if it works.

If someone else's house is burning down, you pay to put their fire out. And they pay to put yours out.

when a crime is commited, you pay to send a cop to help someone. And they pay to send a cop to you.

You pay to educate someone elses child. and they pay for your childs education

water, power, insurance, the list goes on and on. that's a society, man.

why couldn't it work with health care AS IT DOES IN EVERY SINGLE FUCKING FIRST WORLD COUNTRY IN THE FUCKING WORLD!!!!!?????

Now, granted this is the united states so there is the 99.9999% chance that we will fuck it all up. But does that mean we shouldn't try?



Finally, I think they tax the shit out of people in those countries and I think the gas prices are like 5 times what they are here. But if you think about it if there is a strong economy, you are paid as fair wage, and you don't have to worry about getting sick, do you really have much else on your mind?

I suppose that model doesn't really work for a selfish society.

until we change it'll never happen.

slightofjeff

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

If someone else's house is burning down, you pay to put their fire out. And they pay to put yours out.

when a crime is committed, you pay to send a cop to help someone. And they pay to send a cop to you.

You pay to educate someone elses child. and they pay for your childs education

water, power, insurance, the list goes on and on. that's a society, man.

why couldn't it work with health care AS IT DOES IN EVERY SINGLE FUCKING FIRST WORLD COUNTRY IN THE FUCKING WORLD!!!!!?????

It might. I don't know. I don't think I'm on board yet. It sounds like I pay for enough shit already

stupidcorporatewhore

slightofjeff wrote:

It might. I don't know. I don't think I'm on board yet. It sounds like I pay for enough shit already

I'm with you on that. Thank you by the way for at least leaving a crack in the door for the possibility.

I'd do anything to have a President who lied to congress, robbed the treasury and wasted it on health care instead of a war.

my2hands

MLC2006 wrote:

have fun on your commune.

i am no hippie...

and i do not live in a commune... i work 40 hours a week...


health care should not be based on income or someones financial standing, regardless of the reason for their situation


it's ok though... your way of thinking is giving way to progress

my2hands

slightofjeff wrote:

I agree with you, to a point. But on the other hand, why should I be forced to pay for someone else's insurance? I paid to go to college, I work my ass off to pay for my own health care. Why can't other people do the same?

I don't mind giving to a charity. But I tend to bristle when my charity is forced, metaphorically speaking, at gun point.

And I also wonder if government-run medical care will be substandard. In my experience, everything the government touches turns substandard.

So now, I'm paying for health care that is worse than what I had before. That sounds like no fun, too.

But I would be interested to hear how it works in other countries, and if it works.

mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine... its all mine

:rolleyes:




you know whats funny... the same folks that dont want to provide universal health care have no problem collectively providing $1 trillion dollars a year to our war machine, aka national defense... the military is run by the government, and you always beat your chest claiming to have the worlds finest military? so if the federal government can provide the worlds "greatest military" then why dont you have confidence that it could help provide (aka pay for it) the worlds finest health care

wake up folks... start providing food and medicine instead of bombs and war planes

Hinny

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There's really no questioning the international support for Dr Paul though. It's unprecedented.

The only time when I see his name is when I look at these PJ sites. And I read quite widely across many international news media sites. There's the odd mention on the Asia-Pacific editions of Time and Newsweek, and that's about it.

chopitdown

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

you're dead wrong.

Edwards and Obama are at least TALKING about things like boosting the middle class, healthy care and the (saving, not raping) the environment.
something we haven't seen in the past seven years much less from this pack of losers.

ahh yes, talk is cheap...what they want to do is far from cheap.

And I agree with you re: the republican (front runner) options.

OutOfBreath

MLC2006 wrote:

I wonder if any of the MT liberals could vote for any one of the 3 socialists and sleep well at night. oh wait, I forgot which forum I'm on.

Dude, US haven't had a serious socialist candidate for decades. Kucinich would be close, but he is really more of a (internationally) mainstream social democrat from what I have read. Compared to the world, you dont have a real left. You have middle and far right. You have the "go market!" crowd on the one hand, and the "go market!, but a couple of programs for the worst off" on the other. But all dedicated capitalists with a (more or less) firm belief in the market and it's invisible hand.

You may agree with them or not. But calling them socialists is an insult. Probably both for them, and for socialists everywhere.

Peace
Dan

slightofjeff

my2hands wrote:

mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine... its all mine

:rolleyes:




you know whats funny... the same folks that dont want to provide universal health care have no problem collectively providing $1 trillion dollars a year to our war machine, aka national defense... the military is run by the government, and you always beat your chest claiming to have the worlds finest military? so if the federal government can provide the worlds "greatest military" then why dont you have confidence that it could help provide (aka pay for it) the worlds finest health care

Because it's not a government's job. They will half ass it. read the other thread about other countries' plans. Long wait times. Can't choose your doctors. Won't pay for drugs.

I like the system I pay into now, where there is typically no wait, I can basically see any doctor I want, and drugs are covered.

It sounds like universal health care will be great for people who don't have insurance (the most oft-repeated phrase on the other thread is "better than nothing"). It sounds like it will screw those of us who already have health insurance, giving us something worse than what we already have.

I'm not a big fan of worse.

OutOfBreath

slightofjeff wrote:

Because it's not a government's job. They will half ass it. read the other thread about other countries' plans. Long wait times. Can't choose your doctors. Won't pay for drugs.

Ehm, I could respond here with:
wait times depends very much on what and where
I can choose my doctor
Prescripted drugs will get covered.

I'm tempted to ask why military should be government responsibility, since they apparently half-ass everything? Shouldn't defence be out on the market and up to everyone to buy the protection they feel they need? Why not insurance plans including some armed guards here and there?

Peace
Dan

stupidcorporatewhore

slightofjeff wrote:

Because it's not a government's job. They will half ass it. read the other thread about other countries' plans. Long wait times. Can't choose your doctors. Won't pay for drugs.

I like the system I pay into now, where there is typically no wait, I can basically see any doctor I want, and drugs are covered.

It sounds like universal health care will be great for people who don't have insurance (the most oft-repeated phrase on the other thread is "better than nothing"). It sounds like it will screw those of us who already have health insurance, giving us something worse than what we already have.

I'm not a big fan of worse.

Ah, fear, the poster child of post 9/11 America.

your opinion is on the record.

what if we met halfway and make all employers provide health care?

especially the ones who have more than enough money to do it and simply won't.
wal mart and McDonalds, I'm looking in your direction!

for businesses that (claim they) can't provide it, we give them a tax break or have a provider in place.

slightofjeff

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

what if we met halfway and make all employers provide health care?

especially the ones who have more than enough money to do it and simply won't.
wal mart and McDonalds, I'm looking in your direction!

.

Not sure I'd be for that, either. I'd have to think through the economics. I'm not a big fan of governments meddling in business. If Wal-Mart were forced to pay for insurance, they'd simply pass on the cost to the consumer -- which means it hits me in the pocketbook anyway. Also, I'd imagine the folks that work at Wal-Mart are also among the people who shop at Wal-Mart -- meaning they are seeing a hike in the price of goods as well. It doesn't solve the problem. It just shifts money around.

Business is an open market, too.

If the price of Good X is too high at one place, shop somewhere else. If health insurance is important to you, don't work at Wal-Mart. Get a job somewhere with a health plan.

stupidcorporatewhore

slightofjeff wrote:

Not sure I'd be for that, either. I'd have to think through the economics. I'm not a big fan of governments meddling in business. If Wal-Mart were forced to pay for insurance, they'd simply pass on the cost to the consumer -- which means it hits me in the pocketbook anyway. Also, I'd imagine the folks that work at Wal-Mart are also among the people who shop at Wal-Mart -- meaning they are seeing a hike in the price of goods as well. It doesn't solve the problem. It just shifts money around.

Business is an open market, too.

If the price of Good X is too high at one place, shop somewhere else. If health insurance is important to you, don't work at Wal-Mart. Get a job somewhere with a health plan.

You'd actually trust big business to regulate themselves? Government shouldn't help protect us from them running over us? Yeah, good luck, little guy.

Starbucks and In n out burger can pay it, wal mart can pay it, period

poor wal mart, they'll have to make a shit-zillion dollars in profits as opposed to the fuck-tillion dollars they made last year.

how will they settle for the gold plated swimming pool as opposed to the diamond studded one?

Just curious, what about lead poisioning? Wal Mart is making a pretty penny bringing in shitty lead riddled goodes from China. Should our government restrict this? or do you say to them...

"If you want lead free products, shop somewhere else."

oh, that's right, we don't make anything in America anymore.

jeffbr

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

You'd actually trust big business to regulate themselves? Government shouldn't help protect us from them running over us? Yeah, good luck, little guy.
.

All businesses are not Starbucks and Wallmart. Most businesses who don't have some sort of employee health care benefit are small businesses, and it would absolutely impact them.

If you don't like what WallMart sells, don't shop there. I've never shopped at WallMart and have no plans on doing so. They can do whatever they want. Nobody has to shop there, nobody has to work there. Everyone who puts a foot inside a WallMart store does so without coersion.

I support whatever programs require the least amount of coersion or force. If you schtick is use of force, that's fine, but regardless of your noble ends, those means aren't justified to me.

t206

All of the candidates listed in the original post are republicans gone wrong...Ron Paul has such a clear and logical approach to many of our problems...specifically the economy and our foreign policy.

It is a shame that people cant see past the current disaster of a Republican party, and give Ron Paul an honest and unbiased look instead of just buing into what the media tells you to believe about him.

I hope all of his supporters remember to donate if they can on 1/21/08 (tomorrow)

http://www.freeatlast2008.com

slightofjeff

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

You'd actually trust big business to regulate themselves? Government shouldn't help protect us from them running over us?

Nah. I'm saying, when it comes to certain things, I'm not sure big business needs to be further regulated. I'm not into punishing corporations for making money.

They've got to abide by the minimum wage, OSHA regulations, certain safety guidelines. They can't force a 12-year-old kid to work 80 hours a week for 50 cents an hour. I can get behind that. I can get behind regulations that prohibit stores from selling things that will knowingly kill us (ie lead painted toys).

But forcing a company to pay for health care, just because they can? Something about that doesn't quite sit right with me, and a free enterprise-ist.

Why not pass a law forcing Wal-Mart to pay $25 an hour, since they probably could afford it anyway?