Bizarre Health Care Reactions

[Jason]

fuck EVERYONE

i just felt it was absolutely necessary to point out how utterly epic this post was. :up:

[Jason]

The following are all personal and fairly unsubstantiated beliefs, so if you're looking for facts you might want to skip this:

I believe that right now more than ever the United States is at a critical juncture in terms of economic philosophy. What happens with this health care bill will likely shape the future of the country. Where we stand now is in a state of moderately socialized capitalism, which is not a good state for our country to be in. Endless compromise has brought us to a state of a watered down hybridization of capitalism and socialism that has begun to flounder in the water. What this bill presents is a choice, to move closer to one of the extremes, rather than this ineffective gray area. The socialization of one industry will likely (over a large period of time) lead to a general socialization of most all industries (and for those who think that there will only be a "public option"; bitch plz everyone knows this is 1 step to socialized health care), while the choice to forgo this opportunity will likely either keep us in the muddled gray area of failure or a step back from bailouts and government hands in industry towards the market and allowing it to "correct itself". Why people are fighting back so hard is because this wil likely cause a domino efftect for the socialization of industries.

blurb of the day, off to work.

lest i be labeled a troll for that last post, i would like to say two things:

1.) this thread started out with quite a bit of potential and was a very intriguing read, but as with all things political, it quickly deteriorated into a lot of arguing over semantics and very little arguing over substance.

2.) i quoted summa because he quite nicely summed up my own thoughts, and i felt it prudent not to be redundant. there's already enough redundancy in here to go around.

[Galleleo]

The Dutch have been in Uruzgan, one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan, for years now officially to rebuild the local infrastructure, but in reality it is nothing more than fighting as there is way too much resistance and rebels to actually rebuild anything.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Well it's hard to discuss with you sometimes because you don't really have any actual constructive ideas aside from making the world into your ideal world without government. You criticize stuff that exists which is fine, but criticism without any positive and alternative plan gets old fast, especially since you just endlessly criticize all the plans out there.

I could easily call your plans nonconstructive - the only difference between my viewpoint and yours is you have a government-enforced plan. That, in of itself, does not guarantee 'constructivity'. That only guarantees planning. I could go as far as to argue that your plans are actually destructive, but at the point where you feel that my ideas are not constructive on the simple fact that I do not advocate some grand, flashy scheme, I don't think you would quite understand. I'm beginning to see that you have a major confusion with 'means' and 'ends' - you switch them up. It's not about results with you - it's about planning. I have offered many alternatives, which you reject outright. That is ok though, it's the natural way of people.

And a sidenote, it's not governments that have killed so many people in the past century, it's PEOPLE that have killed so many people... part of this 'natural law'... actually the formation of government is part of this 'natural law' too, because I guess when whatever happens happens, I guess government is what ends up happening cause now it's everywhere.

Following this logic, you must not support gun control - it's not guns that kill people. Actually, that is faulty logic, because government is "PEOPLE". The #1 cause of death is 'people', as you said - but these 'people' have an arbitrary claim of right to murder. There is only one class of people to whom murder is not a crime, but a right - and you support them 100%.

Your treatment of natural law shows you're not exactly up to par with the concept. That's ok - because you've spent most of your life studying towards your medical duties, not law. But it kills your perception of things. One of Hayek's greatest insights was his observation of special groups. He noted that environmentalists considered their views the 'biggest issue' of their time, and they demanded 'universal' (ie, nationwide) application of their views via law. Scientists, doctors, automakers, bankers - specialization is a wonderful economic concept, but it is twisted and distorted when enforced through government policy. Everyone thinks their specialty is a pressing issue - my own included.

[Jerome Scuggs]

pulling troops out of iraq to send them to afghanistan is one of the dumbest fucking things ever

well, imagine if all these troops came home - they would need jobs. obama would rather risk the lives of soldiers and foreign civilians than to let people see the serious economic issues we have.

[Jerome Scuggs]

At some point you realize the riff in the class systems, which is greatly intensified in America. Some choose to ignore it, and some choose to care.

Have you ever asked yourself as to why there is a riff? It's a fight for power. Everyone wants it. If you knew that your ideological enemy - no matter how ridiculous his ideas may seem - could gain power and force you to believe his ridiculous views, wouldn't you fight harder to make sure that didn't happen? I wouldn't even participate in these ridiculous debates if I knew that you guys would never go on to decide people's lives - but as long as there is a possibility, I will have to fight as well.

I just can't understand why people still think people are lazy when they're born in a society where inheritance and where you were born determines a lot about how tough your life will be. I start to think about all the external factors you have to deal with, rent, health care, food, transportation, and hopefully some sort of education. It's a full plate, too full for those who are making under ten bucks an hour. Instead of caring about these people, and raising their standard of living they are continuously and constantly taking advantage of. Not that the people in this thread would care anyways, they're value of life isn't determined by your humanity, or the person you are, rather how much money you have and where you're from. Those two factors are justification for a lot of what happens to you in your society.

You spend so much time obsessing over material things; I wonder if you even care about people sometimes. Here's what you must realize: those 'external' factors do not grow naturally on this earth. You can't go dig up rent and healthcare and give it to some poor soul. If your ideas are to be recognized, you must take these things, by force, from other people. And no matter how bad you want to eat the rich, you know that the middle class is going to be the victim of whatever theft the government eventually decides to act upon. There are people now who are without, but when you give them something, you've taken it from someone else. It's easy to think "oh, they will be able to get by" - but what if they don't? Things get more expensive while people make less money. You advocate helping some people in exchange for destroying others. You can't pretend like it doesn't happen. Your compassion is not compassion for humanity, but for certain members of humanity. Greedy businessmen choose to steal from the poor and give to the rich - the only difference between you and him is who you steal from, and who you give to.

Not to sound like a dick, but it's funny when Jerome drops a soup kitchen story and then opposes a variety of social programs. You care just enough to ensure people don't die, that to me doesn't speak volume about your compassion. Capitalists aren't all heartless, they just tend to do heartless things. It's cool, I get it. I like living in a capitalist society and the alternatives aren't really alternatives, but the government's job - and more so our duty as living human beings is to ensure that the ones at the bottom don't sink, while the ones at the top rise so far that their greed and wealth can dictate and control our democracy. To me, someone who would let the mechanisms of capitalism go unchecked or unregulated is allowing your society to abuse and use others, to the extent I'm not entirely sure of.

A soup kitchen run by the voluntary contributions of people is completely different than one operated by force. Likewise, I volunteered to do the job - I was not forced. I care about people so much, in fact, that I am not willing to cut corners with myself in order to see that my ideals are achieved.

Your attitude makes me think sometimes - I volunteered, people were fed, and that wasn't enough? Where were you that night? "Not enough?" What is that? To me, nothing will "be enough" until they have access to free food, healthcare, and money. And not "crappy" food or healthcare - as much of whatever food you want, and whatever medical operation you want. Obviously, that is not physically viable, and it shows many logical flaws. Your views are merely a less extreme version of that - yet founded on the same errors.

"Capitalists do heartless things." Like send people to war, to die? Like waging economic warfare against other countries, depriving entire populations of people from food and other necessities? You will shoot back that governments provide healthcare, welfare, etc - but I could list literally infinite cases where an individual did some good for another individual - and didn't even have to commit a crime to do it. More people helped people today, without the use of force or politics, than the sum of all good things the government can ever heap on its badge. But you never notice these things, you just take them for granted and say "it's never enough". Such ambition, such a careless attitude towards the wonderful things humans can, and do, do.

"Capitalists do heartless things." Like raise the standard of living? Invent the very things you want to force people to own? Like spread culture and art? What has the government ever produced? Where is their automobile? Their pacemaker? Their lightbulb? Their crowning achievement is the development of the atomic bomb.

"Society" never "uses" and "abuses" people. Some people get fucked, but the circumstances of their situation was not brought about by the conscious effort and planning of another individual. Government merely re-arranges who gets fucked and forgotten about, and the worse thing is, it's intentional. Show me a society, run by government, where there is zero murder and 100% mortality and people live to 200 years of age because everyone has everything. It's difficult. What you are trying to do is to outdo mother nature, and to rewrite the natural laws of mankind. You can't go against that.

If I saw someone in need of help - I would do everything in my power to help him. But I won't rob Peter to pay Paul. Yeah it might suck, and then again it might not, but any illusion of anything otherwise can only be destructive, which is what history repeatedly tells us. You're trading an unregulated society for an unregulated government, and I don't think it's a good trade on any grounds - morally, ethically, philosophically, socially, or economically.

[Izor]

I agree that if this health care bill passes, it will mean our country is headed in a direction toward socialism, but if it doesnt it doesnt mean we're going to get rid of the already 'socialist' programs we have now. It will just mean our healthcare wont be socialized.

[Epinephrine]

Your treatment of natural law shows you're not exactly up to par with the concept. That's ok - because you've spent most of your life studying towards your medical duties, not law. But it kills your perception of things. One of Hayek's greatest insights was his observation of special groups. He noted that environmentalists considered their views the 'biggest issue' of their time, and they demanded 'universal' (ie, nationwide) application of their views via law. Scientists, doctors, automakers, bankers - specialization is a wonderful economic concept, but it is twisted and distorted when enforced through government policy. Everyone thinks their specialty is a pressing issue - my own included.

Your argument is that you should let people do whatever they want, because that will produce the optimal result. Well all of human history, people have done whatever they want, and the result has ended up as governments everywhere. Whether that is GOOD or not is not relevant, because that is the end result.

So therefore your views sort of contradict eachother. On one hand, you say that we SHOULD live in a world without government, but on the other hand you say that whatever happens, should happen. And by having whatever happens, happen... we have governments everywhere. See your own inherent contradictions?

Probably not, but maybe one day you'll realize.


And yes, this is why your arguments are not constructive. Your point of view actually contradicts your own point of view... and in the meantime, you basically just oppose the way that everything in the world works as not meeting your ideal world. So not constructive at all because you can't compromise.

[Izor]

you basically just oppose the way that everything in the world works as not meeting your ideal world.

lol thats funny that a socialist is using 'ideal world' as an argument against someone else's point of view. How are other socialized programs like social security doing in America? They're great right? lets have more like it!

[Jerome Scuggs]

When the original articles of confederation failed, the founding fathers organized three conventions to try to amend and rework the articles. At Philly, locked in independence hall, Alexander Hamilton tore up the document and decided to start anew.

He did so without the people's consent, or a majority vote. The people were not told or informed. If the original articles were legitimate, then our Constitution is an illegal document.

People do what they want. Sometimes they try to enforce their views on people, and alot of times people buy it. But to suggest that the people, a majority of the people, actively wanted government - that is not historically true.

The supposed contradiction can be explained away - check your premises. If you could visualize a body of ideas, the two concepts you contradict exist on differen't levels. You are taking a statement from my criticism of the status quo and comparing it to a statement made in regards to a stateless society. Obviously there will be a contradiction if you treat the statements as if I were making them towards the same observation.

[Jerome Scuggs]

As for any sort of compromise, Ron Paul recently outlined a few "points to consider" in a speech to congress. He explains his view and shows ways to achieve his ends, without the use of force.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul585.html

[Epinephrine]

When the original articles of confederation failed, the founding fathers organized three conventions to try to amend and rework the articles. At Philly, locked in independence hall, Alexander Hamilton tore up the document and decided to start anew.

He did so without the people's consent, or a majority vote. The people were not told or informed. If the original articles were legitimate, then our Constitution is an illegal document.

People do what they want. Sometimes they try to enforce their views on people, and alot of times people buy it. But to suggest that the people, a majority of the people, actively wanted government - that is not historically true.

The supposed contradiction can be explained away - check your premises. If you could visualize a body of ideas, the two concepts you contradict exist on differen't levels. You are taking a statement from my criticism of the status quo and comparing it to a statement made in regards to a stateless society. Obviously there will be a contradiction if you treat the statements as if I were making them towards the same observation.

You still don't get it Jerome.

I don't care what people want or don't want. But what happened was that in the end, governments are around the world over.

The fact is, anytime you have a group of people, someone will naturally take charge, while others will naturally listen. Whether this is in a family where the parents are in charge, or an extended family where the grandparents or oldest child hold a lot of power, or a tribe where there are 'elders', or a larger society where there's a king, or in an even larger society with an organized governmental structure. No matter what, there will be a hierarchy.

All highly social animals on this planet have such a thing. If we look at our closest cousins the primates, they also have a well maintained hierarchy within their own groups.

As such, the natural way of things, whether you want it or not, is that some sort of governmental structure will appear.

The question is, not whether we can have a world free form this hierarchy (because we absolutely cannot, it just wouldn't work), it's accepting that this is how human society works, and figuring out the most 'just' way to organize ourselves.

You believe in an impossible ideal, that somehow we can all live together in this world, and not have certain people always taking charge and imposing their will on others. That will always happen. If you 'reset' the world, then this will naturally reappear over time.

Therefore, since you argue for an impossible ideal, you don't represent anything at all.

Furthermore, since governments are the end result of all of this no matter the scenario, you cannot have a 'value-free' allowance of letting people do whatever they want, but say they cannot end up with government, because that is the most natural conclusion, and thus it is YOU that is limiting people's choices.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Your argument is similar to the theist argument of "the biological world is ordered, therefore there must be someone or something running it". It segued nicely into your "impossible ideals" statement which accurately reflects your own position.

I don't know what "it" is I don't get, but if you are in the habit of labelling the family as a 'governmental' structure, then you do not get 'order'. The Greek terms 'taxis' and 'cosmos' were both words that mean 'order', and yet they have completely different meanings. You should examine the difference.

[Epinephrine]

Your argument is similar to the theist argument of "the biological world is ordered, therefore there must be someone or something running it". It segued nicely into your "impossible ideals" statement which accurately reflects your own position.

I don't know what "it" is I don't get, but if you are in the habit of labelling the family as a 'governmental' structure, then you do not get 'order'. The Greek terms 'taxis' and 'cosmos' were both words that mean 'order', and yet they have completely different meanings. You should examine the difference.

I'm saying that the world is ordered and that there must be someone running it? Man now you're just making stuff up.

What you don't get is, left to their own devices, governments is what people have created and ended up with. They have swept away all other forms of possible organization.

So you hoping for an alternative to appear by saying 'governments are bad' won't change that reality. Even if you take away all governments now, and make us all live in some fantasy world without it, some sort of governmental structure will reappear once again in time.

If you want a subspace analogy, it's sort of like, left to their own devices, the cram is what people have developed for basing. Whether you like the cram or not, it is here to stay, and we're not going to go back to the old way of playing base because it just never wins.


That is not to say no other structure will appear in the future, because something inevitably will. But none of us can predict what it is, and so it's foolish to even try. Before you say something like 'well if you let people do whatever they want, then that will appear duh!', I can only say, that the new structure will arrive even if we leave things at the status quo over time, because if there's something that's better than government, people will eventually find their way there.


P.S. considering you label social interactions as capitalism, I think you're the last person who's able to question what other people call a level of organization or government if you wish.

[Cops]

No capitalist nor government is inherinately better than the other, both offer relatively good and bad things. I was arguing that any level there has and will always be some form of government, even at the tribal level. Epinephrine summed it up by pointing out the fallacies in your beliefs, you can't say that humans should be left to their own devices and let the natural progression take place then bitch when the outcome is something that you don't approve of.

You spend so much time obsessing over material things; I wonder if you even care about people sometimes

This is one of your first remarks, which in tern turned me off caring what you had to say. This comment is something that a person makes when he or she a) knows that person, and b) is trying to be an asshole, and since you don't know me I'll assume the latter is your reasoning.

In regards to my comment about the soup kitchen;

If you can't see the irony of you volunteering at a soup kitchen then opposing almost all forms of social programs, then that's your fault. It's like you care enough to feed people so they want die, but when it comes to helping them reestablish themselves in the job market, see a doctor, get psychiatric help, or anything that I see a decent person wanting for all other human beings you feel it is not your duty to help. I'm glad, you put some water and broth in someone's belly but you didn't do any more than that, so I'm sorry if I'm not jumping in the air cause you volunteered 2-3 hours of your time.

This goes back to this idea you will never seem to grasp - not everyone can do it themselves, not everyone is able to be a functioning member of society.