VOX DEM Healthcare Proposals Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2019
(277)
-
▼
March
(28)
- RDale Board Mtg 2Apr19
- Special Ed Funding Shortfalls
- Does Teacher's Race Matter?
- How Popular / Unpopular is Trump?
- Trump Trying to Kill ACA... Again...
- GOP Congressman Quotes Hitler
- Trump is as Innocent as Hillary
- Liberal Conspiracy Theories
- More State Education Mandates?
- Yes: Trump is an Idiot & A**hole
- Parents Of Color Demand More
- DEM Healthcare Proposals
- Robbinsdale School Board Video
- Back to the Education Funding Formula
- Support Dave Dahl
- RDale State of the Schools
- What is Wrong with You!!!
- RDale State of the District
- Trump Breaks Entitlement Promise?
- Robbinsdale and Racial Equity?
- The Invasion Accelerates
- Need to Have Money to Lose Money?
- Two Very Different Headlines
- Dave Dahl for RDale Superintendent !!!!
- Keep Dave Petition
- RDale News
- Ilhan Omar Controversy
- Represent Us
-
▼
March
(28)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
85 comments:
Wait a minute. Didn't Obamacare solve this entire problem?
"Didn't Obamacare solve this entire problem?"
Why would it have? It was a Republican idea, and Democrats caved in to the Republicans on the most important aspect of their plan - Single Payer.
As has been amply demonstrated over the decades, and particularly the past ten years, Republicans have no interest in all American citizens having equal access to health care.
Moose
I think you are both right and wrong...
ACA was a good moderate solution that has been sabotaged.
Instead of refining and improving on it, the GOP fought it.
Which ironically may make the majority of Americans open to one of these much more socialistic solutions...
Kind of like when the stupid religious right tried to out law LGBT rights... Their over reach boomeranged on them to the benefit of Liberals and other LGBT rights supporters.
Somebody, quick, explain to me how Republicans are responsible for Obamacare being a "compromise" when not a single Republican voted for it?
Democrats compromised on the best part of the plan, thinking that Republicans were negotiating in good faith. I think we know better than to trust Republicans now.
Ultimately, it's all irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what we do going forward. And getting every single citizen access to the health care they need without the spectre of bankruptcy and destitution hanging over their heads is the plan and the goal for Progressives.
Moose
Democrats were also hampered by internal division that doesn't exist today. The position that Joe Lieberman thought was a bridge too far in 2009 -- a public option -- is now the right-most option on the table in Democratic circles.
Here are some interesting reviews
PF ACA GOP Plan
CSM Irony
So, is it "a chicken in every pot" or "pot for every chicken" that is the new fantasy of the left?
Actually, Moose, what you want can be easily achieved and will cost the taxpayer/non-taxpayer alike nothing at all. Government simply decrees that hospitals, doctors and pharmacies offer all goods and services to everybody, for free.
You are literally the only person suggesting anything should be free. Congrats!
Moose
Moose,
Unfortunately Jerry is somewhat correct.
All government programs in which Paul gets the same services as Peter while paying a small fraction of what Peter does are unfair.
And worse yet, may encourage Paul to make unhealthy life choices since his healthcare costs do not go up with his BMI, Cholesterol, Sugars, etc.
By the way, during the Winter my weight snuck up ~5 pounds... But my companies ~$3,000 / yr insurance premium credit for staying healthy has me happily eating salads again... Blood draw is June... Maybe I'll even start exercising... :-)
Moose, OK, half free, then. Is that better, and why would you settle for going halfway to the "obvious" solution?
If you're happy being subject to the corporate overlords in that way, good for you. Just remember, you have little to no say in what they do, something you WOULD have in a government program.
Also remember, the United States currently has worse outcomes than most countries that have a government program, so your slippery slope argument doesn't hold water.
But we can fix some of our health care issues by fixing our food system (turning the food pyramid upside-down or sideways would be a good start).
Moose
"Is that better, and why would you settle for going halfway to the "obvious" solution?"
No idea what you're talking about.
Moose
Moose,
Today the corporate over lords need to offer good benefits or they will not get good employees to come and stay... Besides that I am free to go out of network and pay cash if I wish... Not necessarily the case when big government gets involved.
You are correct... People who are poor struggle in our system... Usually that would motivate people to learn, work and improve their situation. But unfortunately some people don't seem to be motivated in that way.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE POOR PEOPLE.
You never ever ever ever understand that.
Everyone deserves health care.
No one cares what you believe is best for them. It is irrelevant.
Moose
Why will there "ALWAYS BE POOR PEOPLE".
Is there something that prevents certain people from learning, staying married, limiting themselves to 1 or 2 kids, working, saving, etc?
Do you believe them to be in some way flawed human beings?
You always...always...look at it from the wrong angle.
There will always be poor people because there will always be rich people taking advantage of the system to hoard more wealth, stealing from their society and community.
You like to trot out your privileged suggestions for poor people to overcome their station every time this topic arises, but you never have any suggestions for rich people, who have enacted and run the system that directly benefits them and disregards the poor.
Moose
Moose,
We live in a democracy, not an oligarchy or monarchy. The poor and middle class make up the vast majority of votes. We have chosen our government and rules, not the 1 percenters.
As for suggestions for the rich people. The name of my blog is Give2Attain for a reason... I think most everyone, especially the rich, should be more charitable and less selfish.
"We have chosen our government and rules, not the 1 percenters."
It's not even the 1 percenters, it's the 0.01 percenters.
MoJo: It’s Not the 1 Percent Controlling Politics. It’s the 0.01 Percent.
And you don't see how Give2Attain is not a name for generosity. It's not a name for charity. If it were, it would be called GiveBecauseItsTheRightThingToDoNotBecauseYouCanAttainSomethingFromGiving
Moose
Sean,
I of course disagree as we have discussed recently.
Moose,
Giving because one feels guilty for something would be bad for the soul from my opinion. I would rather help people understand that giving generously helps the giver and the recipient.
It ties in closely with my principles of gratitude, service and humility.
Giving because you receive something from it is not giving. It is a transaction.
Moose
Ahhh… You are so incorrect…
I was amazed how many definitions were there... This one is simple:
"to put into the possession of another for his or her use"
I mean I give people money, time, possessions, thoughts, love, thanks, etc for many reasons.
Even in your example one is gaining something... "Give Because Its The Right Thing To Do Not Because You Can Attain Something From Giving"
Is it social acceptance or approval you are seeking by conforming to a moral position?
If you give to a bad / abusive person... Is it still the right thing to do?
"Is it social acceptance or approval..."
Neither. That's the entire point. If there are people who don't have what they need and others who have more than they can use in 100 lifetimes, then it has been stolen from those who are in need.
"If you give to a bad / abusive person... Is it still the right thing to do?"
Is that person in need? Are you their judge?
Moose
So when someone with little money pays me cash for my motorcycle... You think I am stealing from them?
When Walmart provides people low cost goods for their money... The company is stealing from them?
Of course I get to judge if a cause or individual is worthy of my gift. If they will likely use it for good purpose or use it to buy drugs / drink... Instead I may offer them a meal, job, counseling, etc. The money is mine to not spend or to give as I choose.
Your two examples are irrelevant. They are transactions. We could, however, talk about the labor practices of WalMart and how they promote dependence on the government.
Moose
No duh... Giving is a transaction.
Or how Walmart enables many poor folks to afford groceries, clothing, etc.
While paying a competitive wage.
They are one incredible company.
No wonder so many people give them their hard money in exchange for a great value.
Hey Moose, if "giving" requires that the giver receive nothing, then charity is not an act of generosity? Huh. I guess to really be moral, according to you, is having government extract from the unwilling and give to the ungrateful.
Moose's insistence that the giver not receive the joy of giving does puzzle me.
It seems he wants it to be a duty without an intrinsic reward.
I assume it comes from his view that the wealth of the USA belongs equally to everyone.
Whether they are a criminal or the inventor of a life saving device.
Whether they strive to learn and improve or sit on their front porch and watch the world go by.
We have no control over someone else’s gratitude or lack of gratitude. It’s irrelevant to whether they require assistance.
Moose
“It seems he wants it to be a duty without an intrinsic reward”
It IS the duty of those with more to help those with less.
Moose
Moose,
1. I have absolute control over somebody's gratitude. If I don't see it, they get zero next time. They obviously didn't need what I gave them.
2. I have zero obligation (unless you want it to be the law, like paying your taxes. There is no generosity involved in doing what one is required to do, nor any moral high ground to be occupied.
Tell me, do you give to anyone who asks, regardless of your means or their need?
Someone you two went off the rails... One does not or should not give in order to receive gratitude, acknowledgement. If you are, then yes you are being selfish and seeking extrinsic rewards.
I give thousands of dollars away each years to people I will never meet and I require no thank you from them to receive an intrinsic reward.
As for "DUTY", to some degree it is since I choose to be a Christian and charity is highly recommended. Otherwise there is no "DUTY" to help the less fortunate or lazy.
This topic always reminds me of the Hank Rearden scene in Atlas Shrugged where he had an epiphany.
His nephew had just begged money off him to give to a trendy charity, and he had insisted that it not be a check because the charity would frown on getting money from a capitalist like Hank.
Hank realized that people like his nephew were happy to use Hank's high moral character and efforts to further their manipulations. In fact, they relied on it even as they behaved questionably and lived off his efforts.
By the way, soon after that he cut of all the "hangers on folks", divorced his wife and took up with Dagny who was also a doer.
So as Moose tries to guilt people into giving more, he is reminding me of the nephew. :-)
Plot summary:
Rearden's mother - against Rearden's wishes that his family does not visit the mills without asking him first - comes to see him. She wants Rearden to give his skillless brother Philip a job in the steel mill. Rearden refuses because Philip can't do the work. His mother tries to manipulate Rearden by saying he only thinks of justice and has no love.
To the astonishment of is mother, Rearden responds saying, "Mother, I'm running a steel plant--not a whorehouse." His mother retaliates by saying, "What are... your mills--a holy temple of some kind?" Despite her tone, Rearden finds himself agreeing in the sacredness of his mills.
His mother attempts to broach up morality, "Don't you ever think of people and of your moral duties?" Rearden says that if he ever gives a job to Philip, he wouldn't be able to face any competent man who needs work and deserves it.
His mother then attempts to warp morality with the statement that, "Virtue is the giving of the undeserved." Rearden ends the meeting with finality, "You don't know what you're saying. I'm not able ever to despise you enough to believe that you mean it."
Rearden next has a meeting with Mr. Ward, the honest owner of a family-owned plant that makes harvest equipment. Ward has spent months trying to get a meeting with Rearden -- his goal being to explain the full truth of his situation, that just a little bit of Rearden steel would keep his company running, and he would be ever so grateful. Although his plant is already running at maximum, Rearden agrees to help. Ward's appearance and manner of speech is a stark contrast to Rearden's mother; Ward is fully conscious of his position, that though he owns a successful plant, he is in a position of a beggar, while Rearden's mother, who is the real beggar, acts as if Rearden owes her his success.
The following Places in Atlas Shrugged are used as settings in this section:
The mill floor at Rearden Steel in Pennsylvania.
The following Characters in Atlas Shrugged appear in this section:
Phillip Rearden - Mentioned
Rearden's Mother
Hank Rearden
Quotations:
"That's why I can't talk to you - because you're not human. You have no pity, no feeling for your brother, no compassion for his feelings" - Rearden's Mother (196)
"If you loved your brother, you'd give him a job he didn't deserve, precisely because he didn't deserve it - that would be true love and kindness and brotherhood. Else what's love for? If a man deserves a job, there's no virtue in giving it to him. Virtue is the giving of the undeserved." - Rearden's Mother (197)
For more of the concepts
Here is the video clip I was looking for.
Now Hank may be a bit self centered and could be more charitable, but I like him more than the others.
LOL @ Ayn Rand. TL;DR
Back to Jerry’s comment: doing what is required of you is not only moral, it is just and right, especially if you have taken on the mantle of Christianity, because that faith is very clear about what is required of those to whom much has been given.
Moose
Moose,
I can understand you wishing to discount my examples, no matter how much Phillip resembles your role in this discussion.
And though Christians are to help the needy and support the church, we are given a lot of free will and latitude regarding how and who .
And from what I understand, we both give a lot more to charity than the typical American.
Personally, I find that rewarding... Whether you think I should or not. 😁
I think it is time to bring out the little sermon I gave our Bishop a while back:
I happily tithe to the church, and give of my time and treasure beyond that. But I hope you will understand that if the Church goes down to the legislature and insists that I be taxed to "help the poor" I will need to cut my pledge to the church accordingly in order to pay them, but I will still need a Bible study. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus commanded government to help the poor.
An oldie but a goodie
Now if God has a purpose for all things...
Maybe he created Liberals like Moose to do
his will on earth since the religious right was
failing abysmally and had become self righteous
, self centered and judgmental of their fellow humans?
If you think the widow can get by with a mite less, I guess having her give that to the government rather that the Temple makes a lot of sense-- liberal sense, anyway. As for "human dignity," after trillions of dollars in welfare, where is it? Compare practicing Christians with Liberals. This whole bilge about "liberals care" is an outrageous myth. They only want to put your money where their mouth is. And then take credit for it.
Unfortunately Churches seem to like to put a lot of their donations into buildings, salaries, social areas, bureaucracy, etc. I don't see them as much different than government.
I truly believe that Liberals care, the only problem they see people like pet rabbits who need to fed, protected and housed with no expectations of them. So we ended up with a lot more rabbits instead of independent capable humans.
If only the rabbits were allowed equal and unfettered access to abortion and contraceptives, there may be fewer of them. But that would require getting Republicans to care about anything that affects the people.
Moose
I just reminded Jerry of that over here... :-)
"I am not sure I have ever labelled them uncaring or worthless... Usually incapable, irresponsible and/or neglectful.
This from the guy who will not even give them free long acting contraception or complete sex education... Like the rich people get...
As you are aware, I have more issues with vouchers than just giving parent(s) choice."
That single parent household difference is incredibly problematic.
I can't even imagine all the ripple effects it has...
But paying bills and raising kids is challenging enough with 2 engaged parents, I can't imagine how challenging it is with one...
Just the idea of having to leave the kids unsupervised at times while working...
I love children, but I understand that they can easily get into trouble and/or form bad habits given enough free time... Keeping even my pretty easy going rule followers focused on good choices, homework, chores, etc took a lot of time and energy. Especially when they entered those trying teen years. :-)
"If only the rabbits were allowed equal and unfettered access to abortion and contraceptives, there may be fewer of them. " --Moose
Great idea! How about mandatory abortions for all black pregnancies, rather than just 30% as currently? Eugenics, yeah, that's the ticket!
Oh, and I forgot, you CARE about these people... :-\
Quite interesting that you thought any of this was about race. Color me unsurprised.
Moose
Or that somehow equating educating young people and providing low cost prevention / alternatives for poor people is in somehow mandating anything?
Especially when his whole education soap box is based on equal access to these types of things...
So who are you calling rabbits? How do you tell them from people? Is there some reason black abortions are vastly over-represented? Does that make race a characteristic of rabbits? Or ask this question: what was the original purpose of Planned Parenthood?
Supposedly our State constitution mandates that the government provide an equal education to everybody. Are they doing it?
1. People who choose to eat at the trough instead of struggling to learn, improve and become self sufficient.
2. Not sure. Maybe length of time on welfare, or number of children they have that they can not afford
3. Because they are poor and can not afford quality birth control, many of the children are raised in single parent households in poor neighborhoods, the kids may have more unsupervised time with one working parent, etc
4. No. Rabbits can be of any race.
5. PP History
6. Providing an equal education does not mean that the each student will be equal at the end...
1. So why are you calling the less fortunate names? Instead of helping them up and out of their situation?
2. The correct answer is you shouldn't. They are people, just like the rest of us except they don't want, don't care, and don't know how to do otherwise.
3. Being poor doesn't explain it. Poor white folks don't rush to abort like that.
4. Except that "The black community's 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent."
5. See section 9.1, and they have soft-pedaled it. Seems as though these clinics were deliberately sited in black/poor neighborhoods.
6. Actually, it does. If some 12th graders read at 12th grade level (like my 9-year-old grandson) and others at 3rd grade level, the schools have not OFFERED an equal education. If it's the difference between 10th and 12th, and is random, that is natural. Probably.
1. Instead of rabbits, we could call them less ambitious and driven humans if that is better. Again, our society offers every citizen an education, free libraries and even job training. Some folks just are not interested or don't have the work ethic to pursue that better life. And I am not too keen on your starve them until they get motivated approach, especially when they have kids at home.
2. Oh come now. You are the one wanting to give that judgment authority to social workers.
3. Source? And if you compare by family income level instead of race... What then?
4. As does their poverty and academic failure level. There is a lot going on here...
5. Your concern being?
"In the 1920s, various theories of eugenics were popular among intellectuals in the U.S. [143] In her campaign to promote birth control, Sanger teamed with eugenics organizations such as the American Eugenics Society, although she argued against many of their positions.[144][145] Scholars describe Sanger as believing that birth control and sterilization should be voluntary, and not based on race.[146] Sanger advocated for "voluntary motherhood"—the right to choose when to be pregnant—for all women, as an important element of women's rights.[147][148] As part of her efforts to promote birth control, however, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that she and they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".[149]
Critics of Planned Parenthood often refer to Sanger's connection with supporters of eugenics to discredit the organization by associating it, and birth control, with the more negative modern view of eugenics.[150][151] Planned Parenthood has responded to this effort directly in a leaflet acknowledging that Sanger agreed with some of her contemporaries who advocated the voluntary hospitalization or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, or hereditary conditions, and limits on the immigration of the diseased. The leaflet also states that Planned Parenthood "finds these views objectionable and outmoded" but says that it was compelled to discuss the topic because "anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger [...] because she is an easier target" than Planned Parenthood.[152]"
5 cont'd: Their mission is to help women who can not afford normal clinics and hospitals... Where should their clinics be located?
6. No you want equal outcomes... That is a Liberal position.
2. I see. You wish to reserve that judgment solely unto yourself. I would prefer to trust that to somebody that actually KNOWS the real human being involved. And you have never said how you plan to "make" these imaginary ne'er-do-wells "do" anything.
3&4. The statistics are out there by race. We measure the education gap by race. If you want to connect one to the other, you have to use the same basis. Of course, if you just want to defend public schools and "the gap," I suppose you can use any sort of twisted logic you want.
5. My concern is that black babies are "routinely" aborted and it is statistically a genocide/eugenics situation.
6. There you go again. I want equal opportunity for kids to get from "where they are" to "reach their full potential. Kids that enter kindergarten not knowing their letters or numbers should be able to learn to read and to "figure." That they do not is a sign the school is not giving them the opportunity.
"My concern is that black babies are "routinely" aborted"
Have you asked why?
Moose
2. I am not sure why you want delegate all of that authority and responsibility to tens of thousands of very unique social workers without giving them any guidance as to what you expect from your "dream system"? How you will prevent fraud?
It seems you want to give all these individuals from across the country a pile of money to spend on helping people "learn to fish"... Which of course is pretty much what our current system does.
3&4 The statistics are out there by many criteria. race, income, language, special ed or not, community type, school type, mobility, homelessness, family type, etc. You just like to obsess about race.
5. If you don't give those young women preventative knowledge and tools, they choose to take reactive measures. And please remember that it is the white child population that is shrinking the most. More Facts and Figures. So I think you eugenics conspiracy is pretty disproven, I mean the mothers are making the choices, not big brother.
6. They and their parents will get out of the system what they put into it. It is the American capitalistic way. Not some Liberal the system has to save everyone thing.
Here is another interesting source
"Then come African Americans, who are missing 9.6% of expected births, or about 700,000 births, which is only slightly more severe than whites, who are missing 9.3%, or about 3.2 million births. Black fertility declined from 2.15 births per woman to 1.89, while white fertility fell from 2.14 to 1.82. Asians experienced a less severe decline, but their fertility was somewhat lower to start with."
"But the “white” fertility figure is a bit misleading, as it includes most Hispanics, who have historically had much higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. Looking at all Hispanics together, these women are missing nearly 19% of the babies that would have been born from 2008-2016, or about 2.2 million births, as their age-adjusted fertility rates have fallen from 2.85 births per woman to just 2.1, and continue to decline. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic fertility has only declined from 1.95 births per woman to 1.72, yielding about 2.3 million missing births. Solidly half of the missing kids over the last decade would have been born to Hispanic mothers, despite the fact that Hispanics only make up about a quarter of fertility-age women."
2. Because I believe INDIVIDUALS should be making these choices, assisted by well-trained social workers whose job it is to "teach to fish" to use your words. Why you want some secret bureaucratic rule book making these decisions arbitrarily, for everybody, just escapes me. People are different.
3-4 I like to obsess about not killing babies. It's worse than denying them a good education.
5. " the mothers are making the choices, not big brother." Really? Where are the incentives created by big brother? Get married and we will give you money? No. Take these contraceptives for $5, or we give you an abortion for free. Again, treating them as real people, with some hope, goes a long way towards both problems.
6. The problem is that liberals don't give a rip about the people they supposedly "care" so much about. They simply don't want to get their hands dirty actually helping, so they create some Sugar Daddy big government program(S) to put somebody else's money where there mouth is. And how's it working out?
2.
How much funding are you going to give them?
Will there be supervisors and performance reviews?
How will you judge if it is working?
How will you determine if an employee should be terminated?
Have you ever managed an organization?
3&4.
No need to kill anyone if they are never conceived.
Education and the right protection can work wonders.
5. The government money can not fund an abortion except for in rare situations. And I would happily give out free quality long acting contraceptives to stop the need for almost all abortions. You and the Religious Right are the ones who fight this logical step. A bit dated: Cost per Method
6. Actually Liberals care very much that the poor eat each day and have somewhere to sleep. Unfortunately they are willing to rob the poor of improvement and self esteem in the process. :-)
2. How much do they need?
I don't know. I will assume that those in charge would.
If people start getting OFF welfare and into self-sufficiency.
You mean like shot? I know you don't care about "those people," but really?
Yes.
3&4. So the next Einstein will never be born? Great idea. But at least we will have killed the next Hitler.
5. Hate to tell you, but money is fungible. PP gets government money.
6. Good answer, but the liberals do not =provide= that direct help. They prefer government create "warehouses" for these people. Except when it's time to vote, THEN they are very interested in them.
2. Just admit... All you have is a dream...
3&4. Now are you saying that preventing unwanted conceptions is "killing"?
It is that time again
5. Facts and Data
6. Actually, the government hires social workers who work with these people. Much like your dream.
2. Yes, I dream of government run like a business, organized for results.
3. No. But the result is the same, a human being does not come into the world.
5. So? The biggest argument presented is the one you make, that these children, if allowed to live, would be a burden on society. That's eugenics. And liberal nonsense.
6. It does, but they are overwhelmed with both paperwork and "clients."
2. Sorry, your dream is just a dream. Businesses have goals, budgets, policies, procedures, performance plans, performance measurements, fraud prevention, etc... You apparently want to give a bunch of social workers some undetermined amount of money to attain some undescribed result...
3. Are you thinking we have a shortage of people?
5. You must have read a different link. :-)
6. Yes there are a lot of poor people out there... (see above)
"...these children, if allowed to live, would be a burden on society."
Liberal nonsense? Very much to the contrary. We are the ones who want to pay for them to attend good schools. We are the one who want them to have quality, affordable, equitable health care. We are the ones who are working to see to it that we stop destroying our environment. We are the ones who are looking into ways that they can afford college and not be saddled with burdensome debt. We are the ones working so that they all have a fair shake...rich, poor, white, non-white, native, immigrant, cis, trans, hetero, homo, man, woman. We aren't the ones defunding Special Olympics, for heaven's sake. We whole-heartedly accept the "burden" of those who are born. Republicans talk a good game, but they don't walk the walk.
Moose
Moose, the "we" you speak of does indeed include all liberals, who want all these good things, but they want "we" to include everybody except themselves when it comes to paying for it. And indeed we are willing, we just want it done efficaciously.
Moderated by G2A for vulgar inappropriate language. :-)
"...but they want "we" to include everybody except themselves when it comes to paying for it."
You're just making **** up now.
"And indeed we are willing..."
The proof is in the pudding. Republicans aren't willing to do anything that costs them or their corporate overlords a dime.
Moose
Really? Compare charitable contributions between the two groups, or leaders of the two groups. And notice that rich people, given the choice between paying taxes or giving to charity, choose the charity? Why should that be, if the government is "doing charity" so well? Like John Kerry moving his yacht to Rhode Island, or the $50 billion in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
Meanwhile gutting education funding and programs that help millions. I know it's too inconvenient for you that citizens actually do benefit from their government (when not run by morons, thieves, traitors, and corporations).
Moose
Moose, Now you are just trash talking. You have not offered a single /Good/ reason why government should be deciding what healthcare you will get and what you will pay for it for yourself and for others.
Before we were interrupted John said...
2. Sorry, your dream is just a dream. Businesses have goals, budgets, policies, procedures, performance plans, performance measurements, fraud prevention, etc... You apparently want to give a bunch of social workers some undetermined amount of money to attain some undescribed result...
In what way is /your/ description of my plan my plan different from the current situation? Isn't my description of my planit more like a business than what we do today?
3. Are you thinking we have a shortage of people?
No. Are you thinking we need to kill a few more, maybe to "save the planet"?
5. You must have read a different link. :-)
no, and that is your problem. You read things to confirm your bias, and I read those same things for the opposite. Once again, Truth is where you find it, and the only way to know is bashing whatever you find up against your own knowledge and experience.
6. Yes there are a lot of poor people out there... (see above)
so why aren't we trying to lift them out of poverty, rather than Keeping them comfortable (supposedly)in it?
"You have not offered a single /Good/ reason why government should be deciding what healthcare you will get and what you will pay for it for yourself and for others."
I know, right? I mean...why should the government care if my 'health care' kills me?
Whatever. Your generation can't die off soon enough.
Moose
2. Let me think: Your "dream" has no goals, budgets, policies, procedures, performance plans, performance measurements, fraud prevention, etc... I would say it is quite different from a plan and/or what we have today.
3. Again with the comparing preventing unplanned pregnancies with killing babies... You must be a Catholic... The words for your enjoyment or if you want to sign along
5. Well I would be happy to see where you teased this strange interpretation out of... "So? The biggest argument presented is the one you make, that these children, if allowed to live, would be a burden on society. That's eugenics. And liberal nonsense."
6. We help those who are willing to try... That is about all one can do unless you are willing to cut them and their children off.
7. The government should enforce policy quality, policy content and enrollment for the same reason they enforce driver's having liability insurance. Otherwise when individuals scrimp and get sick, the costs are transferred to our society and/or tax payers.
And yes everyone who can afford it should pay their own bills. Unfortunately many can not afford it so we need to help them afford being proactive and staying healthy.
2. I am not writing a 2000-page piece of legislation. I am proposing a different way of looking at the problem, one that would be Far more effective. I can explain it to you; I cannot understand it for you.
3. That is a very intolerant view. One does not need to be Catholic to be morally opposed to abortion, and appalled by the notion that anybody should be sitting in judgment of an "unplanned pregnancy."
5. Not difficult. It is right there in plain English, except that the word "eugenics" is not used. You seem to not see what you want to not see.
6.Nonsense. We offer as an "entitlement" all kinds of freebies to those who meet the hidebound set of rules. And we do nothing for some people who truly need help. For a while I worked with a group that did nothing but help those that "welfare" turned away. And years ago I discovered that I could become eligible for food stamps if I did just a few things: sell my house and move into a bigger one that I couldn't afford, sell my car and buy a fancy new one that I couldn't afford, and squander my savings on a big fancy vacation. Then I could get food stamps. The only "trying" I would have to do would be making foolish decisions, given the incentives presented to me.
7. Once again, who is this "we" you speak of?
2. It sounds the same as today to me. Except that in your dream we can take the benefits away from kids if their parent(s) fail to comply.
3. Many people are against abortion or want to reduce the need for it, including myself. Unfortunately it tends to be the religious fundamentalists like yourself who are against thorough sex education and making quality birth control readily available for all citizens.
5. Please copy and paste some of those clear statements. And remember... eugenics: "the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition "
6. All systems can be played by questionable citizens.
7. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
2. As I said. If you don't understand the difference between a government entitlement and true charity, you are not understanding.
3. You insult me again. What makes you think "thorough sex education" helps the problem, or that BC is NOT "readily available"? Is unplanned pregnancy a mechanical problem?
5. Nah. Improve your reading comprehension.
6. Yes, so why have a "system" which encourages it?
7. Notice different words for each of the six things, and that it is "promote" the general welfare," not provide it, and not to individuals.
I wonder...if you have a law or a policy that actively harms people, does that promote the general welfare or does it do the exact opposite?
Moose
That is why it says the GENERAL welfare. Greatest good for the greatest number.
Then we should have the rich buying our health insurance... :-)
Is that really "good" for anybody?
Free health care for the masses, and the 1% pay for it...
Seems to line up pretty good with your statement...
"Greatest good for the greatest number."
Again, is that really "good" for everybody? Sounds a lot like, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" -- Karl Marx
Yes, it was interesting to see you write that...
"That is why it says the GENERAL welfare. Greatest good for the greatest number."
Post a Comment