|
On October 08 2013 06:13 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:24 farvacola wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote:
That is simply not true; there are many doctors and healthcare providers who consider the ACA a step in the right direction. Lol where'd you hear that? Newspaper? TV? I've got over a dozen medical proffessionals in my family (my dad is a doctor for example). Not a single one likes it. Nor do they have any stories of knowing someone that does. First off, though I am a broken record on this site in this regard, check out this wiki on availability heuristics; they make for poor evidence generally. And to add to that, I, too, come from a family full of those in medicine, and every single one, while critical of the act's implementation and concessions, thinks it is progress. See where that gets us? Nowhere. We could keep going and say mine are right and yours are wrong? ^_^
There is a diference between a bad project and a project, coming from a good idea, that needs to be perfected. If you think there shouldn t be an healthcare for everybody well you should put yourself in the shoes of others. It s interesting how since the 80s and Reagan, the US has become way more liberalist and individualistic, for example the diference in salary between the 10% of the poorest and the 10% of the richest has never been this big since the beginning of the XXe (source insee).
|
On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game?
There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough.
Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary.
Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either.
Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle"
|
So now I have to pay for bottled water to be trucked into my house everytime I want to take a shower?
No thanks I'll take public utilities
|
On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either.
There's no one holding you back from just doing it. You can take your libertarian friends and you can make your own currency. The government wouldn't tax you guys for the business you do, I think? The exchanges you guys would do wouldn't be in US dollars. I'd be pretty interested in seeing how it would turn out if you'd get it to work in some area over a bunch of villages and towns somewhere.
|
On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either.
...bottled water is cheap?
|
On October 08 2013 06:27 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 06:13 Rassy wrote:Poll: What will happen.The republicans will give in after stalling and just before defaulting (20) 77% There will be some compromise just before usa defaults. (3) 12% There will be some compromise but only after the usa has defaulted. (3) 12% Obama will give in after stalling and just before defaulting. (0) 0% There wont be a compromise and usa goes into complete default (0) 0% 26 total votes Your vote: What will happen. (Vote): The republicans will give in after stalling and just before defaulting
(Vote): Obama will give in after stalling and just before defaulting.
(Vote): There will be some compromise just before usa defaults.
(Vote): There will be some compromise but only after the usa has defaulted.
(Vote): There wont be a compromise and usa goes into complete default
Voted that the republicans will cave right before default, mostly because Boehner said he wouldn't allow it to happen: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/debt-limit-impasse.html?_r=0Boehner can avoid a default simply by allowing the House to vote on a bill to increase the debt ceiling, and I do not believe that he is willing to blow up the economy when there are indications that he never wanted this fight in the first place. Edit: Also, if Boehner is crazy enough to fail to allow such a vote, I think it is highly likely that Obama will find a way to raise the debt ceiling regardless. I'm not an expert on Constitutional law, but I suspect there is precedent for Obama citing an imminent threat to national security and raising the debt ceiling by executive order. I am virtually certain that a default will not occur, and the financial markets seem to agree with me.
Anybody who thinks that the goverment will default is believing too much of the media hype.
There will be a behind closed doors meeting, where the republicans and democrats talk, find a bill that they will all vote on, and then pass it, meanwhile declaring victory and walking away quietly.
|
On October 08 2013 05:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:04 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 04:23 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 04:20 BillGates wrote:
I wish, No more deficits, debt, patriot act, NDAA, federalization of police, no more FDA, CIA, FBI, etc...
Reality is, its all fake. There is no shutdown. It would be great if the federal government just shut down, they are useless anyways, just destroying the economy, going into war, spying, you name it. Yeah, the government does a really shitty job of making sure the drinking water is safe and warning you of when it isn't, responding to accidents and clearing the roads when an accident occurs, etc. Successful government is invisible. You only ever notice the problem parts. The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke. Police respond to accidents, but they do not clear anything up, private companies do. The community funded and voluntary based firefighters may help if there is a need. There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends. Everything else can be community based and voluntary, based on contracts, charity, private business. You forgot healthcare in that list. And your tacit suggestion that volunteer firefighters are better than local government employed ones is simply wrong.
In regards to firefighters, there are seemingly odd situations where many volunteers (or paid on call) FFs are actually more experienced/proficient than many full time "professional" firefighters in the US. For example there's a small city near me of around 50k people that has a full time department that responds to about 10 structure fires a year, which means any given member runs around three or four actual fires a year, whereas thanks to mutual aid agreements some of our local volunteer departments run far more than that a year. It's really only in large cities that you full time FFs actually see a significant amount of actual fires in a year.
Additionally, fire departments not directly run by a local government are a fairly common thing but most people don't realize it, although they are still generally funded by tax dollars and just contracted out.
|
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
|
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
|
On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
|
On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
Yeah, like making those fuckers pay for their own food stamps.
|
On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
There is a way. You shoot the people who bitch about it. Works for China and NK. Otherwise, you do what any other country in the world does and ignore the people who complain loudly about change and judge laws on an empirical basis.
|
On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
|
On October 08 2013 07:17 Dranak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it? Yeah, like making those fuckers pay for their own food stamps.
I'd rather a law that dumped government money into helping get people into college and on their feet. Instead of forcing them to buy something and when insurance companies start waving the white flag, the middle class gets another tax or we sign some stimulus bill (more tax).
|
On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
You do realize that systems like Universal Healthcare, employment insurance and welfare affect you, personally, a lot more than just if you need them, right?
|
On October 08 2013 07:20 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:17 Dranak wrote:On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it? Yeah, like making those fuckers pay for their own food stamps. I'd rather a law that dumped government money into helping get people into college and on their feet. Instead of forcing them to buy something and when insurance companies start waving the white flag, the middle class gets another tax or we sign some stimulus bill (more tax).
We could make the insurance companies insure everyone in the country for the same amount of money they currently take in and they would still be rolling in money. Not really a concern if you know anyone in a management position in an insurance company.
|
United States43739 Posts
On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
You should look up the concept of externalities.
|
On October 08 2013 07:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it? How does this directly affect your quality of life? And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case? Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
|
On October 08 2013 07:24 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 08 2013 07:14 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 07:11 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote:
Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this... Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law? You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it? How does this directly affect your quality of life? And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case? Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards? Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
...so you decide what services people "deserve" based on how it directly affects your parents...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
