who would you vote for??

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Maybe her "leftish, community-centric" side told her that having 40 million uninsured people, mostly children, in the "greatest country in the world" is unacceptable.

It's a shame she has no objective, individualistic side that might have considered these facts:

- The "children" you speak of are not "most". They are 1/5. And more than half of that 1/5 are eligible for free healthcare through SCHIP programs but simply have not been enrolled by their parents. The majority of the rest live in families that could afford private health care if they chose to.
- The United States became the "greatest country in the world" by allowing individuals free choices in their lives and the obligations and responsibilities they chose rather than the ones chosen for them.
- "Unacceptable" is a subjective concept that begs the question unaccetable to whom?. While it may be "unacceptable" to Hillary Clinton or you that 40 million Americans are uninsured, it may also be "unacceptable" to me to allow the state to rob me in order to provide them "free" insurance. America is a country founded on a principle of your behavior being controlled by your standards of acceptability, rather than all our behavior being controlled by Hillary Clinton's or George Bush's standards of acceptability.

Right, this is a semantic arguement I won't be getting into.

You already got into it by suggesting that it's ok for politicans to be "power-hungry" and "overly-driven".

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

It's a shame she has no objective, individualistic side that might have considered these facts:

- The "children" you speak of are not "most". They are 1/5. And more than half of that 1/5 are eligible for free healthcare through SCHIP programs but simply have not been enrolled by their parents. The majority of the rest live in families that could afford private health care if they chose to.
- The United States became the "greatest country in the world" by allowing individuals free choices in their lives and the obligations and responsibilities they chose rather than the ones chosen for them.
- "Unacceptable" is a subjective concept that begs the question unaccetable to whom?. While it may be "unacceptable" to Hillary Clinton or you that 40 million Americans are uninsured, it may also be "unacceptable" to me to allow the state to rob me in order to provide them "free" insurance. America is a country founded on a principle of your behavior being controlled by your standards of acceptability, rather than all our behavior being controlled by Hillary Clinton's or George Bush's standards of acceptability.

The above is a good example of why I don't be joining you in any semantic arguements.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The above is a good example of why I don't be joining you in any semantic arguements.

Excellent. We must be closer in opinions than I thought. Since the differences between us are only semantical, you must also be a firm individualist who believes he has no inherent obligation to others and would therefore dislike the message of any politician who suggested otherwise.

Milhouse VanHouten

farfromglorified wrote:

Excellent. We must be closer in opinions than I thought. Since the differences between us are only semantical, you must also be a firm individualist who believes he has no inherent obligation to others and would therefore dislike the message of any politician who suggested otherwise.

I feel I have no inherent obligation to continue this line of debate.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I feel I have no inherent obligation to continue this line of debate.

Excellent! Now you know how I feel when Hillary Clinton suggests I have an inherent obligation to raise her children and pay for her medicine before I do the same for myself. I knew our positions weren't very different.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Excellent! Now you know how I feel when Hillary Clinton suggests I have an inherent obligation to raise her children and pay for her medicine before I do the same for myself. I knew our positions weren't very different.

To be fair, you'd be paying for both at the same time.

Milhouse VanHouten

RainDog wrote:

To be fair, you'd be paying for both at the same time.

Probably not, I imagine that Chelsea already has some kickass health insurance.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

To be fair, you'd be paying for both at the same time.

No, I'd be required to pay for her's. If I had anything left over I'd be "kindly allowed" to pay for my own. If taxation were optional, then you'd be correct.

farfromglorified

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Probably not, I imagine that Chelsea already has some kickass health insurance.

I don't know about Chelsea, but I'm already paying for Hillary's "kickass health insurance". As a US Senator she has better insurance than I do. And I'm paying for both.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

No, I'd be required to pay for her's. If I had anything left over I'd be "kindly allowed" to pay for my own. If taxation were optional, then you'd be correct.

No, if healthcare was universal, you'd be required to pay for both at the same time - her's and yours.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

No, if healthcare was universal, you'd be required to pay for both at the same time - her's and yours.

Again, not really. I'd be paying for her healthcare and whatever healthcare she wished to provide me. I'd have absolutely no choice in the matter at that point. She'd have the healthcare she wanted. I'd have whatever she thinks I want.

Regardless, Hillary Clinton was not proposing a single-payer system.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Again, not really. I'd be paying for her healthcare and whatever healthcare she wished to provide me.

Perhaps. But you'd still be paying for both at the same time.

farfromglorified wrote:

I'd have absolutely no choice in the matter at that point. She'd have the healthcare she wanted. I'd have whatever she thinks I want.

So, being a Senator should be considered unpaid volunteer work?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Perhaps. But you'd still be paying for both at the same time.

Yes. But your earlier statement implied that I'd be paying for her healthcare and my healthcare. What you didn't consider is that healthcare includes an element of choice. Remove that choice, and that healthcare is no longer mine.

So, being a Senator should be considered unpaid volunteer work?

Ideally, yes.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes. But your earlier statement implied that I'd be paying for her healthcare and my healthcare. What you didn't consider is that healthcare includes an element of choice. Remove that choice, and that healthcare is no longer mine.

I didn't mean to imply anything other than the healthcare you were both paying for would be paid for and provided to both at the same time. I didn't consider "choice" because I didn't realize that choice needed to be involved for something to be considered healthcare.

farfromglorified wrote:

Ideally, yes.

For a full time job? Damn, and here I pegged you as someone who believed time should be compensated monetarily.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

I didn't mean to imply anything other than the healthcare you were both paying for would be paid for and provided to both at the same time. I didn't consider "choice" because I didn't realize that choice needed to be involved for something to be considered healthcare.

If we passed a "Universal transportation" bill and you were then forced to pay $50,000 for a unicycle, would you consider that your unicycle?

For a full time job? Damn, and here I pegged you as someone who believed time should be compensated monetarily.

Who said anything about a full-time job? Being a federal Senator should be a 1-2 week per year position.

Furthermore, you pegged me incorrectly (although only slightly). Time should always be compensated. But monetary compensation requires a payer as well as a payee. And forced compensation is exactly what I'm railing against here. Any political figure who believes that the reward of ensuring this country protects the rights of all individuals (including their own) is not a justifiable compensation for the effort involved should seek other employment. However, if citizens wish to voluntarily compensate such people for their efforts, I have no problem with that.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

If we passed a "Universal transportation" bill and you were then forced to pay $50,000 for a unicycle, would you consider that your unicycle?

Perhaps sarcastically. But that wouldn't change the fact that it was a unicycle and that I'd be paying for the one I use at the same time as the ones everyone else got.

farfromglorified wrote:

Who said anything about a full-time job? Being a federal Senator should be a 1-2 week per year position.

But it isn't. For that, you'd need to amend the Constitution, I believe.

farfromglorified wrote:

Furthermore, you pegged me incorrectly (although only slightly). Time should always be compensated. But monetary compensation requires a payer as well as a payee. And forced compensation is exactly what I'm railing against here. Any political figure who believes that the reward of ensuring this country protects the rights of all individuals (including their own) is not a justifiable compensation for the effort involved should seek other employment. However, if citizens wish to voluntarily compensate such people for their efforts, I have no problem with that.

Don't you live in this country voluntarily?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Perhaps sarcastically. But that wouldn't change the fact that it was a unicycle and that I'd be paying for the one I use at the same time as the ones everyone else got.

But here's the difference. If you unicycle breaks or doesn't meet your needs, it's not yours to fix or to replace. You don't own it because you didn't own the options to acquire it or choose it or replace it. Be it unicycles or healthcare, once you make it "Universal" it is no longer yours. It is owned only by the people who control it.

But it isn't. For that, you'd need to amend the Constitution, I believe.

Nope. The Congress says that the Senate only need meet once per year. However, it does say that they shall be paid out of the US Treasury. If the Senators wish to collect $0.01 per year from the Treasury, I can make my peace with that.

Don't you live in this country voluntarily?

Of course.

ladygooddiva

clinton for sure;) she is cool and a woman !!!and she has the power and ge is really smart etc.

edgarcamp

It is sad it would come down to that "choice." The fact is the republican candidate probably wins again, that side has a way of getting their voters to turn out(abortion/gay marriage/God). If a dem. wins it'll be a bigger surprise then Clinton over HW Bush. They are waiting for Obama to develop more, then maybe they have a chance. He might be the best choice of anyone, if Americans are ready for a prez. of color. I know it sounds bad, but it is true.
Problem is, the best and brightest won't go anywhere near public office! Oh, that and politicians are all a bunch of liars and cheets and thieves and egomaniacs and hypocrites and........

ledvedderman

edgarcamp wrote:

Oh, that and politicians are all a bunch of liars and cheets and thieves and egomaniacs and hypocrites and........

I don't think that is a fair statement. I've been around politics for a while and I can assure you that not all politicians are "egomaniacs" and "hypocrites". A lot of them are really in it for the people they represent.