| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote: Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. Well then provide incentives and punishments for quitting and smoking through work. | ||
|
Catatonic
United States699 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote: Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. Please provide a source for your claims, because many have already provided sufficient evidence throughout this thread to disprove pretty much every factual claim you make. And no, political despair is never the answer, one must always at least hope that progress can be made, if not actually attempt to work towards it. | ||
|
andynewin
United States105 Posts
On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote: Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. Wouldn't you spend all that money towards insurance over a year? Doesn't health insurance cost people about 200 a month X 12 months 2400 a year doesn't seem like a huge difference to me. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote: I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Doesn't this line of reasoning seem a little sick to you? You're actually saying that you don't feel bad for cancer victims. The statement "I think they should live with it" means nothing, they live with it either way (unless they die). This doesn't sound remarkably callous to you? Why does it matter the exact cause and effect that leads to the cancer? Why does that automatically and completely remove your sympathy from the situation? Doesn't this sound strange to you? | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote: I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Well, how do you feel about that cancer you're going to get because of decades surrounded by unchecked wireless technologies? Or the one you will get because of GMOs (right, we're not sure about those, but Monsanto already killed a goddamn city, it wouldn't suprise me to see this come true). Your kids will call you stupid for behaving that way, you know? | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote: Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. I think its strange to not have sympathy for cancer victims. Smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer, but why does that automatically mean a smoker doesn't deserve care? Where do you draw the line that says 'x amount of risk is acceptable before I will no longer try to help you'. All of us play video games, and I'm sure there are a lot of us who are fat, don't exercise, and eat bacon every day. That's a huge risk, right up there with smoking. Does that mean we don't offer care when they keel over from a heart attack at 35? Who decides which risky choices are acceptable and which aren't? The point is you can't decide who deserves care and who doesn't, at least not on an institutional level. Sick people need care, period. Deciding if someone is worthy of health care is unethical, and impossible. EDIT: Think about people in your life. You've probably known a smoker as a family member or friend. If they're diagnosed with cancer, do you really not want them to receive health care because they 'deserved' it? | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote: Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Dear The Extreme Right, I know you're all angry about "socialized health care", and all that whatnot. I know you're probably too busy writing angry letters to senators and congress about that to read this. But, just in case you aren't, I'm going to write it. Every soldier, and every retired soldier has access to Tricare and/or the VA. Paid for by tax dollars, to offset medical costs for those who were in the military. Now, last I checked, the majority of the Right wing likes the military, yes? Even if we get socialized health care? Or does that make us Commie scum that should be deported to Canada? So, while I say thanks for my socialized health care you didn't try to stop, I feel obliged to ask... why were you discriminating against everyone else? Signed, a medically retired ex-grunt. | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
I have no problem* with people being against it because they are selfish fucks and don't care about poor/sick people. Shit, I can at least understand where they are coming from. People in general just don't seem to give a shit about people they aren't friends/family with. As sad as that sounds it's pretty standard human behavior. My problem is with half the country calling themselves compassionate 'christians' and being against it. There is nothing compassionate about telling the poor and people with pre-existing conditions to go fuck themselves if they get sick. Then, in the abortion debate, they frame it to make it sound like they are the most compassionate individuals on the planet, fighting against the evil immoral tyranny of letting a women make her own choices about her body. I just really don't fucking understand how people can take these sort of positions at the same time. edit: less of a problem?* | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote: If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? I think the only difference here is that you can choose not to own a car, but you can't choose not to own a body. I'm guessing most of the complaints are because the law had the ham-fisted compromise of mandatory insurance, instead of the state issued insurance paid from taxation that I seem to recall them planning. I suppose the blame for the individual mandate rests at least in part on the populists screaming "No New Taxes". | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On July 01 2012 00:24 JingleHell wrote: Here's something I just typed up and put on Facebook, I'm going to copy it here, verbatim. VA hospitals are inefficient. And expensive. It's a gift we're (Americans) willing to give because veterans have earned it. This policy could never in a million years be extended to everyone and not sink our economy into a bottomless abyss. | ||
|
Enki
United States2548 Posts
On July 01 2012 01:38 BluePanther wrote: VA hospitals are inefficient. And expensive. It's a gift we're willing to give because veterans have earned it. Tricare itself is great. I used to be on it because my dad is retired Navy and I never had a problem with it. That said, The VA stuff seems to be hit and miss. Alot of people have problems with it. My sisters ex eventually had to get out of the Navy because of injuries occured while on duty. He has gotten a few surgeries but it hasn't fixed anything. I feel like if he were to go to another doctor in the private sector, things would be fixed. The VA is shit, its a bloated bureaucracy that like many things in the military, doesn't seem to run optimally. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On July 01 2012 01:38 BluePanther wrote: VA hospitals are inefficient. And expensive. It's a gift we're (Americans) willing to give because veterans have earned it. This policy could never in a million years be extended to everyone and not sink our economy into a bottomless abyss. That VA hospitals are inefficient and inflate costs is actually an antiquated perspective, especially since the reforms under Kizer during the 90s. Many VA hospitals are actually better at balancing a budget due to congressional budget constraints. Here's a slightly dated article which tells the tale of a Minn. VA hospital that cuts costs, provides cutting edge treatment, and implements one of the most thorough systems of electronic record keeping in the US. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/17/va-clinic-care/ | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On June 30 2012 23:55 rogzardo wrote: I think its strange to not have sympathy for cancer victims. Smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer, but why does that automatically mean a smoker doesn't deserve care? Where do you draw the line that says 'x amount of risk is acceptable before I will no longer try to help you'. All of us play video games, and I'm sure there are a lot of us who are fat, don't exercise, and eat bacon every day. That's a huge risk, right up there with smoking. Does that mean we don't offer care when they keel over from a heart attack at 35? Who decides which risky choices are acceptable and which aren't? The point is you can't decide who deserves care and who doesn't, at least not on an institutional level. Sick people need care, period. Deciding if someone is worthy of health care is unethical, and impossible. Someone who assumes an obvious and well-known risk assumes part of the damages from the results of that assumption of risk. It's part of our legal foundation even, if you look at tort law. Why is it like that? Because it makes it more fair. Example. Two people run red lights and sue each other for the damage to their car because they other broke the law. Since both are 50% at fault for the damage, both pay 50% of the damage. Likewise, you cannot sue someone for battery (being hit by a ball) when you watch a baseball game. You assume the known risk. I think the same reasoning should be applied to health care. You assume the risk of smoking -- this isn't something out of your control by any means (like, say, age). You should therefore have to pay more than the average person in insurance to cover the costs of covering you. On June 30 2012 23:55 rogzardo wrote: EDIT: Think about people in your life. You've probably known a smoker as a family member or friend. If they're diagnosed with cancer, do you really not want them to receive health care because they 'deserved' it? That's not what I said. I said they should pay more for it (throughout their lives) to offset the costs of their care. They can have insurance, but damned if they should pay the same rate as me. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 30 2012 20:42 Kukaracha wrote: Well, how do you feel about that cancer you're going to get because of decades surrounded by unchecked wireless technologies? Or the one you will get because of GMOs (right, we're not sure about those, but Monsanto already killed a goddamn city, it wouldn't suprise me to see this come true). Your kids will call you stupid for behaving that way, you know? Monsanto killed a city? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 01:38 BluePanther wrote: VA hospitals are inefficient. And expensive. It's a gift we're (Americans) willing to give because veterans have earned it. This policy could never in a million years be extended to everyone and not sink our economy into a bottomless abyss. How have veterans "earned" it? Don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm not complaining, but the fact is, it's socialized health care. What makes one person more deserving than another? Is our society purely based on personal merit? If that's the case, maybe we should put a cap on inheritances? Maybe anything above $10k going to someone besides a spouse goes to reduce the national debt instead? This isn't about efficiency. It's about the fact that people scream about the fabric of society being threatened by socialized healthcare, but the cases where we already have it are ignored completely. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On July 01 2012 01:47 farvacola wrote: That VA hospitals are inefficient and inflate costs is actually an antiquated perspective, especially since the reforms under Kizer during the 90s. Many VA hospitals are actually better at balancing a budget due to congressional budget constraints. Here's a slightly dated article which tells the tale of a Minn. VA hospital that cuts costs, provides cutting edge treatment, and implements one of the most thorough systems of electronic record keeping in the US. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/17/va-clinic-care/ From the story itself: Drucker said the money to build the center came from a Congressional grant and some local fundraising. The truth is that VA hospitals, while very good, recieve lots of support in may other ways: volunteers, donations, special attention for events, etc. They also have the benefit of having the entire VA working with the same vision as them (which is not directly balanced on the budget sheet (that I'm aware, not 100% on this)). VA caseworkers are constantly doing a lot of the work that is done by normal hospitals, such as screening, helping vets with paperwork, etc. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On July 01 2012 01:52 JingleHell wrote: How have veterans "earned" it? Don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm not complaining, but the fact is, it's socialized health care. What makes one person more deserving than another? Is our society purely based on personal merit? If that's the case, maybe we should put a cap on inheritances? Maybe anything above $10k going to someone besides a spouse goes to reduce the national debt instead? This isn't about efficiency. It's about the fact that people scream about the fabric of society being threatened by socialized healthcare, but the cases where we already have it are ignored completely. While not a veteran, I served some time in the military. I personally think veterans make sacrifices that deserve our respect. The assume a large amount of risk for little reward. I have no qualms with giving them certain special treatment, particularly with medical care for disabled veterans. And we do have a large tax on inheritances, and it's debatable. I would have no problem increasing death taxes, but the owners and their lawyers can always find another way around it. For example, they could buy a 10 million dollar house and gift it to the kid: do you force the kid to sell his family home to pay the tax for his parent passing away? My grandparents just did that this year -- I was gifted my inheritance for Christmas to avoid this tax should they pass away. Nothing large by any means, but even on the low ends it makes a huge difference because gifts are tax-exempt under certain amounts (and for good reasons). As much as I would like to see a more egalitarian system, there are problems that are created for EVERYONE when you try to take away the riches of the rich systematically. It's just not that simple. | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
Bombastic Starleague
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
