EPTThe idea that we need go empower our governments to eek out every possible second of life span of every single American regardless of lifestyle choices baffles me. Individuals need to be in charge of their health care, as well as their dollars, instead of a massive entity of force.
Republican nominations - Page 232
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Harbinger631
United States376 Posts
The idea that we need go empower our governments to eek out every possible second of life span of every single American regardless of lifestyle choices baffles me. Individuals need to be in charge of their health care, as well as their dollars, instead of a massive entity of force. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
Democracy means everyone gets a say when we collectively decide what sort of country we're going to be. If some of us (most of us) believe it is a good thing to support, promote, and legally reflect the judeo-christian values that made America what it is today, we have EVERY right to vote our consciences - no less than those who disagree with us have every right to vote theirs. Please just stop with the lame Taliban / theocracy / militant Islam comparisons. If anyone is trying to shove their values down other people's throats, it's the atheist liberal base and their allies in the courts. At least religious conservatives have the common decency to fight things out at the polls. I don't know. In the last couple years, I've been struggling through this one. Because while I hold Judeo-Christian values, I wonder what is the use of forcing a person to behave according to values when they are neither Jew nor Christian. Can you legislate morality? Can you make people better by forcing external compliance when so much of Judeo-Christian values actually debunks the whole conformity on the outside when there has been no change on the inside? Can it be what makes America today when people are being coerced to comply? And the Santorum thing just highlights a further problem. There may be Judeo-Christian values, but it's not nearly as monolythic as that term would suggest. There's a reason there are so many denominations- we can't get along. That whole contraception thing, I have a big problem with because it is very much an opinion based with little to no textual support. And yet some Christians (the state Santorum said he would allow them to ban contraceptives) would put that under the Judeo-Christian values category. So who decides? Furthermore, giving the state this sort of power to rule behaviour (beyond harm to person and property, perjury and the like), might seem nice when you win, but it's a sword that can swing both ways. I don't want my values to win because I don't think this level of coercion helps anything at all (if we are thinking moral bankruptcy) and to be extremely selfish... I don't want to win because I don't want to lose. It sounds democratic because you are voting on it, but it really isn't freedom of belief/ religion/ speech and all those other good things. Ends and means, And the poor means you use will get poor ends so you get Lutherans and Reformed chasing out the Mennonites. It is more along the lines of tyranny of the majority once you start regulating these sorts of things. Edit. I'm still trying to formulate my thoughts on the inadequacies of volunteer charities. At it's simplest, beyond not having the financial stream, I seem them as a more scattershot approach. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On January 06 2012 12:05 Penitent wrote: I find it infuriating that so many seem to think that democracy means being allowed to voice your opinion with your vote ... but only if you agree with an atheist liberal worldview. Otherwise, if you believe in voting for preserving and promoting traditional values like one-man-one-woman marriage, you're not participating in a democracy, you're the Taliban! You're trying to bring your sharia law to America! You're waging a jihad against apple pie and the flag! Hogwash. Democracy means everyone gets a say when we collectively decide what sort of country we're going to be. If some of us (most of us) believe it is a good thing to support, promote, and legally reflect the judeo-christian values that made America what it is today, we have EVERY right to vote our consciences - no less than those who disagree with us have every right to vote theirs. Please just stop with the lame Taliban / theocracy / militant Islam comparisons. If anyone is trying to shove their values down other people's throats, it's the atheist liberal base and their allies in the courts. At least religious conservatives have the common decency to fight things out at the polls. In political discussion on the level of states, it's generally assumed that unspecified "democracy" means "liberal democracy" as opposed to what you're talking about, which is presumably "direct democracy. No country follows direct democracy. The US is a liberal democracy, and has arguably been one since. . .well, since its creation. Liberal democracies don't simply do what the majority want, and never have. The power of the majority is limited by the rights of the individual, the rights of the individual are limited by the power of the majority. There is, of course, tension between these two fundamental concerns, but they are the pillars of society. You seem to think that you can remove one of these pillars - the rights of the individual. Well, I mean, you could, if that's what most people really wanted (though I don't think they do in any developed nation, thankfully), but if you look at every nation where that's how things work, you'll realise that it's all around pretty terrible. I'm not going to call down the wrath of Godwin's law, but don't forget that when you go by the idea that the majority has the right to do anything, politics becomes terrible, and it's not limited to countries without a Christian heritage or majority, if that's what you'd like to imagine. So yeah, maybe what you seem to think is an ideal form of government wouldn't ban women from learning to read and write or whatever, but it falls into the same category as the sorts of nations who do, and is an incredibly dangerous place to be. The links between what you're talking about and extremists who gain political power in other countries are absolutely valid; you both have identical political views (i.e. mob rule at the complete cost of individual rights), you just happen to have a different value system. Even if you only have self-interest at heart, remove the safeguards for the rights of others and you remove the safeguards for your own. Don't forget that. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On January 06 2012 12:05 Penitent wrote: I find it infuriating that so many seem to think that democracy means being allowed to voice your opinion with your vote ... but only if you agree with an atheist liberal worldview. Otherwise, if you believe in voting for preserving and promoting traditional values like one-man-one-woman marriage, you're not participating in a democracy, you're the Taliban! You're trying to bring your sharia law to America! You're waging a jihad against apple pie and the flag! Hogwash. Democracy means everyone gets a say when we collectively decide what sort of country we're going to be. If some of us (most of us) believe it is a good thing to support, promote, and legally reflect the judeo-christian values that made America what it is today, we have EVERY right to vote our consciences - no less than those who disagree with us have every right to vote theirs. Please just stop with the lame Taliban / theocracy / militant Islam comparisons. If anyone is trying to shove their values down other people's throats, it's the atheist liberal base and their allies in the courts. At least religious conservatives have the common decency to fight things out at the polls. What? When did anyone say that you aren't allowed to vote or voice your opinion? That doesn't mean you're right. Furthermore it's quite obviously comparable to pushing for islamic law. How can you even argue this? Is it because you're islamophobic or do you truly not see the similarities? But yes, why base laws on rational arguments when you can just use holy texts or religiologic... | ||
|
dafunk
France521 Posts
On January 06 2012 11:39 Sakenator wrote: What people in this discussion fail to realize is the fundamental idea of Economics...namely Scarcity. There is simply not enough resources to provide everyone with optimal healthcare. Right now as much as 18% of our GDP is spent on healthcare and we arent even in the top 20 for longevity or satisfaction for their health care. You have a government run system (medicare/medicaid) which low balls payment for doctors and consistently tries to deny healthcare to its providers as a means of "cutting cost" while also restricting who and where they can receive healthcare (HMOs). Compounding this is the over-utilization of the system by the elderly who sap massive resources from the system to prolong their lives by a few years thus denying younger people the resources to access healthcare earlier in their life thus leading to the development of multiple comorbities before they even seek medical care (which again leads to increased spending for little prolongation of life) (this is known as diminished marginal return). Ron Paul is emphasizing the need for people to take responsibility for their healthcare. If individuals are actually paying for their insurance and have a committed effort for their health they are more likely to make better choices because they know they can not afford to spend thousands of dollars in medical expenses that could be prevented simply by diet and exercise. The elderly would not be able to sap the resources and would be forced to spend their own money for medical care. Lastly as for emergencies like a man getting hit by a car and having to be in the ICU for weeks. Hospitals always take the hit on occasions like that. When a homeless person comes into the ER with an emergency the hospital takes care of that person free of cost! (medicaid does not pay for the person unless he is priorly signed up for the program) So this idea of people without insurance being allowed to die is just ridiculous and moronic like the idiot who asked the question in the first place. However, if a smoker who lives a sedintary lifestyle and develops a heart condition and needs a transplant who does not pay insurance....im sorry but you are SOL. People need to realize that you make decisions in life and those decisions have consequences. Im tired of having to pay for people who smoke or use drugs or eat themselves to death and being forced to take care of these people b/c they are unemployed and receive medicaid and having to deny people access to healthcare who are working 2 jobs to support their family but make enough money not to qualify for medicaid. If we eliminate this system of government assistance we can lower the cost of medicine and allow people to have access to insurance and medicine if they deem it important to them. However if you would rather make the choices that lead to an early death that is your right just like it is my right to say I dont have to pay my money for your wrong choices What about someone with a heart disease that never smoked and exercice everyday ? | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 06 2012 13:32 dafunk wrote: What about someone with a heart disease that never smoked and exercice everyday ? They'll have super cheap insurance for catastrophic events and major surgeries and probably little to nothing. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized. It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking. I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally. Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote: I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal)) If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized. It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking. I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally. Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. Write-in is ok, but have you considered voting for Gary Johnson (assuming he does in fact run as the LP candidate?) | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 06 2012 13:42 EternaLLegacy wrote: Write-in is ok, but have you considered voting for Gary Johnson (assuming he does in fact run as the LP candidate?) Was probably going to write-in Ron Paul simply because I want one of the major parties to consider absorbing some of his views. But if Gary is on the ballot then I would definitely consider it. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote: I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal)) If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized. "State's rights" is such a cop out though. My state is a minority and has certain views! Let us make our own laws regarding issue X. All you do is pass the buck, and now you have minority individuals facing state laws that affect their behavior. Maybe some southern state really does want to ban birth control. I guarantee you that there are plenty of folks living there that want to be able to have sex without getting pregnant. Instead of an "oppressed state", you merely have oppressed individuals living within that state. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote: I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal)) If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized. It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking. I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally. Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. Just to clarify, conservatism isn't about limited government, but rather a continuation and protection of traditional programs and culture. At this point, conservatism in the U.S. would be more along the lines of prohibiting gay marriage, upholding SS and Medicare, rolling back the healthcare legislation, celebrating judeo-christian values, and keeping a strong military. One could even argue that reversing the Bush tax cuts could even fall under the flag of conservatism, since they are very recent and we were doing well before them. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote: I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal)) If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized. It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking. I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally. Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. Just to clarify, conservatism isn't about limited government, but rather a continuation and protection of traditional programs and culture. At this point, conservatism in the U.S. would be more along the lines of prohibiting gay marriage, upholding SS and Medicare, rolling back the healthcare legislation, celebrating judeo-christian values, and keeping a strong military. May I just say that I'm really sick of this "Judeo-Christian" bullshit. It's like you want to say how Christian America should be but you don't want to sound anti-semetic because Jews get this weird exception clause. Judeo-Christian values is bull. None of the founders were Jewish, nearly all of them were secularists, and many of them were Deists. Where the hell did we get Judeo- from? It's a secular country and always has been. Why not Monotheist values? Oh right, we want to differentiate from those muslims, don't we? | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 06 2012 14:00 aksfjh wrote: Just to clarify, conservatism isn't about limited government, but rather a continuation and protection of traditional programs and culture. At this point, conservatism in the U.S. would be more along the lines of prohibiting gay marriage, upholding SS and Medicare, rolling back the healthcare legislation, celebrating judeo-christian values, and keeping a strong military. One could even argue that reversing the Bush tax cuts could even fall under the flag of conservatism, since they are very recent and we were doing well before them. You're arguing from a direct literal meaning of conservatism. I'm arguing from what it ACTUALLY means in American Politics. Edit: Then again, maybe my views are dated and conservatism is just a synonym for Christianity nowadays and my views are labeled as something else. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/vote-count.png) A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he's not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. She also said the party would not be giving interviews about possible discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified. Source | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote: There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On January 06 2012 12:05 Penitent wrote: I find it infuriating that so many seem to think that democracy means being allowed to voice your opinion with your vote ... but only if you agree with an atheist liberal worldview. Otherwise, if you believe in voting for preserving and promoting traditional values like one-man-one-woman marriage, you're not participating in a democracy, you're the Taliban! You're trying to bring your sharia law to America! You're waging a jihad against apple pie and the flag! Hogwash. Democracy means everyone gets a say when we collectively decide what sort of country we're going to be. If some of us (most of us) believe it is a good thing to support, promote, and legally reflect the judeo-christian values that made America what it is today, we have EVERY right to vote our consciences - no less than those who disagree with us have every right to vote theirs. Please just stop with the lame Taliban / theocracy / militant Islam comparisons. If anyone is trying to shove their values down other people's throats, it's the atheist liberal base and their allies in the courts. At least religious conservatives have the common decency to fight things out at the polls. And that's why democracy is wrong and why no Western country employs it as far as I know. Even if a majority supports it, no country has the right to be a slave pen. Nobody has a right to vote away the rights or property of others. Simply obtaining a majority does not give you that right. The democratic Athenians had no right to kill Socrates just because the majority disagreed with what he had to say. That's why we need a constitution that outlaws voting away the rights and property of others. The US Constitution does a decent job of it but all a majority of people have to do to break the Constitution is vote in a President who will stack the Supreme Court with judges who will interpret the Constitution improperly. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote: There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote: And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. | ||
|
growl
United States203 Posts
On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote: May I just say that I'm really sick of this "Judeo-Christian" bullshit. It's like you want to say how Christian America should be but you don't want to sound anti-semetic because Jews get this weird exception clause. Judeo-Christian values is bull. None of the founders were Jewish, nearly all of them were secularists, and many of them were Deists. Where the hell did we get Judeo- from? It's a secular country and always has been. Why not Monotheist values? Oh right, we want to differentiate from those muslims, don't we? I was just thinking the exact same thing, THANK YOU. I've always hated that term. On the topic of the candidates, I'm definitely rooting for Romney or, preferably, Huntsman. The rest of them are either insane or scary or both. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote: Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. | ||
| ||
