Can anybody explain how America will "lose freedoms"? Other than just asserting it philosophically I mean.
Obama changes health laws - again, conservatives "lose freedoms?"
- Thread starter chuck schmidt
- Start date
What part exactly are you referring to here?
Generally though, government is operated upon coercion and expanding government to take over the private sector generally leads to coercion replacing free will. If you are talking about the mandate specifically, then the freedom lost is in the ability to choose whether or not to buy insurance. The freedom to spend one's own money how they want is also hurt and perhaps even more unfortunate is the freedom for the future to spend as they want- this bill just handed them (whether it is us later in our lives, our children, or whoever in the future that has to pay) trillions more in debt that they have to pay with the fruits of THEIR labor.
I and most Americans find that the compulsory purchase of insurance is unnecessary. Long overdue changes, the others, mind.
Great essay. Good grammar and punctuation. Now to reality ...?
I don't necessarily agree with mandating health care either, but other jurisdictions are finding it workable. Or are you suggesting that America is too wise and powerful to learn from others? Perhaps its a sign of how seriously US health care has deteriorated? At some point you have to trust that your leaders have done right even when you don't necessarily agree. No plan will receive the approval of 330,000,000 people.
Once again I repeat the point you ignore: perfection is the enemy of the possible. The plight of 20,000,000-40,000,000 Americans without health coverage has obviously reached a national point of criticality. The private sector could have kept their mandate forever. Unfortunately their computers started telling them some years ago that statistically people would always trade money for life and health, especially for their families, so the money pit was potentially bottomless. The old guard who used to recognize ethical barriers to profit taking were eased out and the new, aggressive, computer oriented capitalist thinkers replaced them. The industry always knew that the curve had to have an end point somewhere, and they gambled that they could make enough to make it work. The most optimistic believed that they could find a level at which to plateau that would be long-term sustainable. Unfortunately the greedy profit takers out-voted the cautious plateau seekers and they lost - or have they? They are still here and still have a place. They are just no longer trusted with control. Too many Americans died and were bankrupted.
There is no such absolute right in any organized society. Unless you wish to retreat to the deep bush and live without supporting or being supported by others (in the broad societal sense), you can never expect absolute control over your money. To do so is short sighted, greedy and irresponsible. Having said that there is nothing short sighted, greedy or irresponsible about opting out and living as a sole social unit. Just remember that the collective gives you your greatest freedom. I have lived in the bush. It was great for a while. But eventually one must replace a chain saw, buy ammunition, get clothing. Unless you already have money you must earn some. Then you must pay taxes. you don't "have" to of course, but not doing so is an offense. That is immoral.
America has the biggest military and lowest gasoline prices in the western world. Suck it up and start paying as much for a gallon of gas as (ie) Canadians or Brits and many things will be affordable. Bring home the military and put half of the carrier battle groups into short term mothballs. There are more options than multi-generational debt. They just don't all permit current vested interests to keep their licenses to print money for corporate coffers.
Just IMO, anyway (ain't I humble? :giggle
Uncalled for.
As for your next two segments, no need to copy/paste them here. I read and responded to them in the first thread.
To want to keep the fruits of my labor is greedy but to force others to pay for something you want is not? Wow.
As for the collective giving you the most freedom- no disrespect intended, but any political philosopher would laugh at that- even the egalitarians.
You obviously don't realize that Europe is still in massive debt even with those high gas taxes, etc. As for the military argument- that has nothing to do with this debate. Besides, the health care entitlements you are for are on their own unsustainable fiscally anyway.America has the biggest military and lowest gasoline prices in the western world. Suck it up and start paying as much for a gallon of gas as (ie) Canadians or Brits and many things will be affordable. Bring home the military and put half of the carrier battle groups into short term mothballs. There are more options than multi-generational debt. They just don't all permit current vested interests to keep their licenses to print money for corporate coffers.
Just IMO, anyway (ain't I humble? :giggle
On a side note, why are you infatuated with comparing yourself to others? Looking at and learning from another is one thing, but constantly comparing yourself just shows no faith in yourself (or in this case, our own country, our own culture, and our own people.)
There absolutely is an absolute right to use your own money as you see fit too use it. Money is property, and the right to own property is fundamental to freedom. Some of the Founders considered it the fundamental right, and without it, all other rights are just words on paper. If you control how a person spends their money, you control that person, that person has no freedom.
There are many quotes, even entire letters (this one by James Madison is a good one, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch16s23.html ) written on the fundamental freedom of private property, but this quote summarizes it well:
　
Freedom depends on the right to property just as it does to rights of free speech...There is no human activity that does not involve the use of property. We cannot sleep, wake, eat, walk, drive, fly, swim, boat, work, go to church, print a paper, view a movie, make a speech, procreate, or engage in conversation without using property in some one or more of its dimensions. If a church cannot be owned by its communicants, their freedom to worship is under the control of someone else. If a press cannot be privately owned, freedom of the press is an illusion. If government controls all property, freedom of speech is something belonging to government, not to individuals.
CARSON, CLARENCE B., Free Enterprise: The Key to Prosperity
　 CARSON, CLARENCE B., Free Enterprise: The Key to Prosperity
How on earth did the student loans become part of the Health Care Reform Bill????? That really boggles the mind, in fact may send alarm bells ringing, as one then wonders what other oddities are hiding in the 2000 plus pages Health Care Reform Bill?
Second, why put Government in charge of the loans? How did this happen? Did someone vote on this? We're talking about freedom here, but is there any? The whole idea of having such an uncoordinated, messy, chaotic 2000 pages plus legislation containing bits and pieces that do not belong to it, is evidence of how little freedom there really is. No doubt the bits that do not belong, must have surfaced as part of the many deals that have been negotiated in order to win votes for steamrolling the legislation through.
Obama and his team must be patting themselves on the back for today, but I have no doubt in my mind that this messy legislation is going to be Obama's worst legacy and nightmare to come.
Second, why put Government in charge of the loans? How did this happen? Did someone vote on this? We're talking about freedom here, but is there any? The whole idea of having such an uncoordinated, messy, chaotic 2000 pages plus legislation containing bits and pieces that do not belong to it, is evidence of how little freedom there really is. No doubt the bits that do not belong, must have surfaced as part of the many deals that have been negotiated in order to win votes for steamrolling the legislation through.
Obama and his team must be patting themselves on the back for today, but I have no doubt in my mind that this messy legislation is going to be Obama's worst legacy and nightmare to come.
Not at all. Your positions are way out of touch with reality, IMO. Great for a college term paper showing that you are starting to learn to think in the terms of a discipline, but useless for governing.
I wondered if you'd play that card. There are at least two reasons why it isn't a winning hand.
1. Look at the times on the post. This thread was first. I copied from here to there.
2. When you ask me the same question or raise the same issue twice you don't get a different answer each time. I didn't duplicate the answer until you duplicated the issue.
Pure sophistry, my friend.
Once you get out of college, read more, understand more and think more you might realize that in the context of the real world I am correct. Methinks you attend a conservative college somewhere and are regurgitating their philosophies without adequate thought. If all you have been taught is the conservative position you need more exposure to the other side of the argument to gain a greater understanding.
Absolute nonsense. Your issue is government spending and a position that government cannot afford it. The military issue is a massive source of wasted federal funds better spent in America on Americans.
And the military is not?
Me? I compare me to nobody. You don't even know who or where I am. I think you're losing this argument so badly you're getting upset.
Chuck, I do not get upset if I am "losing" because I don't think it is even possible for me to lose here- this is an unmoderated debate and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. When I said why do you compare yourself, I meant why do you compare your country- phrasing might have been a bit misleading I guess.
As for the military argument, that is what is known as a red herring. It is an outside issue which you throw in to try to hurt my ethos. It really has nothing to do with health care, which is the primary topic here. I am speaking out against health care spending in particular here because that is the topic at hand. Besides, I actually agree that we need to stop policing the world, so on that front we might be comparable- we just disagree on the idea of spending for universal health care. Since we do agree on the military issue, it is even more irrelevant (which it still would be even if I didn't agree with you on it as per the structure of classical debate.)
And I find it ironic that you tell me I have no idea who you are, what you do (which is true and again, I meant you as in comparing your country) when you pretend who know who I am and what I do to bring on a long speech in which you try to hurt my ethos by making be look like some ignorant college student. In today's day and age, with the internet and so many resources available, basically anyone who can read can be well informed. It doesn't matter if I am a college student or not. Counter my ideas (if you can), but don't just write me off because of my age. Doing so only hurts your own argument. (and on a side note, I have worked in the real world, I have had to pay bills and I do have family members without health care insurance.)
As for similar issues coming up, that is because the two topics are intertwined.
As for the military argument, that is what is known as a red herring. It is an outside issue which you throw in to try to hurt my ethos. It really has nothing to do with health care, which is the primary topic here. I am speaking out against health care spending in particular here because that is the topic at hand. Besides, I actually agree that we need to stop policing the world, so on that front we might be comparable- we just disagree on the idea of spending for universal health care. Since we do agree on the military issue, it is even more irrelevant (which it still would be even if I didn't agree with you on it as per the structure of classical debate.)
And I find it ironic that you tell me I have no idea who you are, what you do (which is true and again, I meant you as in comparing your country) when you pretend who know who I am and what I do to bring on a long speech in which you try to hurt my ethos by making be look like some ignorant college student. In today's day and age, with the internet and so many resources available, basically anyone who can read can be well informed. It doesn't matter if I am a college student or not. Counter my ideas (if you can), but don't just write me off because of my age. Doing so only hurts your own argument. (and on a side note, I have worked in the real world, I have had to pay bills and I do have family members without health care insurance.)
As for similar issues coming up, that is because the two topics are intertwined.
Perhaps we need to stick with the subject of the thread:
When the Bill started out, Obama and the Dems promised almost 80 billion of dollars student loans that would be possible, that has shrunk to half of the amount, and symbolically for me, the cost of the administration and implementation of the Bill may double for exactly the same reason, which is a mixture of dealmaking, manipulation, band-aid strip negotiations, and just plain chaos.
Personally, if I do not want to purchase health insurance, and the Government forces me to do so, that in its own right takes away my freedom of choice. If some of the States don't want to subscribe to Obama's Health Reform Bill, for a list of rationally thought through reasons, they should have the right to opt out. If they don't have that right, then that would affect their freedom of choice as well as right to govern their own State. In effect, this Bill is taking away people's freedom of choice to decide for themselves. I am very surprised that no one has determined in advance of voting, that there should be a two thirds majority vote set as a requirement as this Bill obviously has serious ramifications for the people's freedom to choose. It is obvious that there are an overwhelming number of individuals as well as States opposed to the Bill. From an administration point of view, the Bill is also completely chaotic, inefficient, and consists of too many bits and pieces that are going to haunt administrators for the rest of the life of that Bill. Most certainly more legislation will have to be passed in order to deal with all the inconsistencies of the current Bill. Imagine how expensive that is going to be.
When the Bill started out, Obama and the Dems promised almost 80 billion of dollars student loans that would be possible, that has shrunk to half of the amount, and symbolically for me, the cost of the administration and implementation of the Bill may double for exactly the same reason, which is a mixture of dealmaking, manipulation, band-aid strip negotiations, and just plain chaos.
Not at all. Your objections to the health care issue are largely economic. It is my position that America wastes billions a year on unnecessary military spending. Divert money from defence spending to health care and there is no economic deficit. You seem to be suggesting that unless health care takes in more money than it costs it is a failure? The military doesn't show a direct profit? Why must the ill health and accidents of the American people show a profit? All of society will produce more and better and poverty will decrease if health care improves. Both increased production and less poverty are positives.
If you let go of the military, health insurance will become completely unaffordable for everyone. Everyone will have to fend for themselves against terrorism. Live a while in countries where there are regular occurrences of bomb blasts in restaurants and cafes, and maybe it is cheaper to have the military from a health point of view.
You do realize America is almost totally demilitarized, right? Vary few of our assets are actually in the Homeland and most of our armories are depleted/under supplied. Yet despite all this, the closet we've come to anti-gov't rebellion has been the TP and the closet to invasion being the Mexican drug/warlords making a few raids along the border. We're safe and we have no army.
Love nukes.
We can cut spending domestically and close bases while diverting what's left to the war effort and not suffer.Not that I'd support it, mind you.
Right, it is fighting its enemies outside the States in an attempt to keep them there, so that America can remain demilitarized. Nukes are not used to make war, but for balance of power so that Americans can prevent nuclear war.
The world's largest defence budget and most powerful military = demilitarized?
:giggle: He-lloooooooooooooooo conservatives. I guess that means y'all oughtta ramp up the defence budget before Mexico and Canada invade and split y'all cross the Mason-Dixon line?
Maybe Mexico, and perhaps in a way they have been at it for a very long time, but Canada, maybe not. :unsure:
If America is truly demilitarized Canada should have no problem in theory. In practical terms I doubt Canada would see anything to be gained.
Since more than 90% of Canada's trade is with the United States, it is probably in Canada's interest to keep it strong. So Canada would probably think more in terms of how it can help the States, than taking it over. The Mexicans on the other hand may feel they have a few axes to grind. They probably will start with Texas I think.
Since more than 90% of Canada's trade is with the United States, it is probably in Canada's interest to keep it strong. So Canada would probably think more in terms of how it can help the States, than taking it over. The Mexicans on the other hand may feel they have a few axes to grind. They probably will start with Texas I think.
Mexico as a functioning country no longer exists. I think the De jour gov't has bigger issues to worry about.