Yes, actually I do. I think the overall cost of medical care would decrease dramatically and would improve if we privatized everything. There would be those people who would not be able to afford the care, and that is unfortunate. There are also people on the streets that are unable to afford food and shelter - yet it is not the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone manages their money, or has enough for their expenses.I'm glad I asked the question. It appears we have a fundamentally different understanding of the role of government in America. I take mine from the Preamble to the Constitution:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't think your bold step backwards into Victorian thinking will help us achieve any of these laudable goals. Leaving our 'unfortunates' to die of treatable diseases because they can't 'manage their money' will not make us stronger. We already have 40 million uninsured and your answer is to take away insurance from even more millions of people? Leaving aside for the moment the social unrest your idea would surely foment, it would deny coverage to poor children, the elderly and disabled veterans. That isn't exactly promoting the general welfare.

In order to provide for the common defense we need a strong economy. Right now our economy is being threatened by the pernicious effects of rising health care costs. There is an answer to the problem. Nearly every industrialized nation in the Western world has adopted it except for us. The answer is universal health care and it's high time we joined the rest of the 21st Century instead of repeating the mistakes of the 19th.
It all depends on what you can afford. Insurance insures that the hospital will get paid. And I do think our healthcare is substantially superior on a per capita basis to all of those countries.If you can afford it our healthcare is the best in the world. If you can't you're SOL.We're some of the fattest people on Earth. 30 percent of adults in the US are obese, 20 percent in Australia. And Australia is facing an obesity problem too in comparison to other countries.I fail to see how privatizing health care and insuring fewer people will help us fight the problem of obesity.This means that our numbers are disproportionately larger than other countries. The baby boomers are reaching an age were medical visits are more common, so when that passes our overall medical costs will even out.First of all the baby boom is hardly an exclusively American phenomena. Most countries in the world experienced a sudden population growth in the years following WWII. Secondly, we know that the greatest portion of healthcare dollars are spent in the final year of a person's life. This means that as the boomers age the healthcare crisis will be greatly exacerbated. The worst is yet to come.I completely agree about our system sucking - though there are many ways to get health insurance. My work pays for 90% of mine currently. My last work paid for all of it. I think you could even work at starbucks and get health insurance.Last I heard Starbucks was revamping their plan, but that is neither here nor there. 40 million Americans can't work at Starbucks. Look, it's great that you have insurance and can find jobs that will pay for it. But a lot (and I mean really a lot!) of working Americans can't. And it's not getting any better for them it's getting worse. For the good of our country it's imperative that we address this problem now. And unlike so many other problems we face the answer is right there in front of us. Unfortunately, the insurance companies, the HMO's, the pharmaceuticals, their media shills and their bought-and-paid-for members of Congress will stop at nothing to preserve the system that scoops huge amounts of cash out of our pockets and shovels it into theirs.American industries pay salaries to their employees and often offer health insurance. People know that they are getting insurance when they decide to work there. Providing insurance does not harm our businesses; why do you think people often choose lower paying federal jobs? Because of the benefits.Providing insurance does not hurt our businesses? I must say you have some rather odd notions. Please consider the following:

GM on a crash course with health care costs
12-YEAR STRUGGLE A BAD OMEN FOR NATION
By Ron French
MediaNews

Bruce Bradley grew up in the 1950s. He remembers when every week in darkened movie houses another giant spider or fire-breathing lizard would threaten the world. Despite the best efforts of the military and bright minds, every kid in the audience knew there was no stopping the monster.

Today, the 61-year-old wages his own war on a monster in a Pontiac, Mich., office building. There, some of General Motors' best minds fight a losing battle against the bills for Nexium prescriptions, heart bypass surgeries and CT scans that flood in at a rate of $10,000 a minute.

Bradley gets a cup of coffee, and GM has spent $50,000 on health care. He goes to lunch, and $600,000 is gone. He takes a three-day weekend on his sailboat and returns to $43 million in medical bills.

For 12 years, Bradley, GM's director of health care policy, and the corporate soldiers in the automaker's health care war room have waged an unprecedented battle against health care costs, throwing more money, time and energy into the issue than any company in history.

GM has used its size to strong-arm doctors and bully drug companies. It built the largest wellness-education program in the country, persuaded workers to pay more for medical care and cajoled hospitals to incorporate assembly-line efficiencies into emergency rooms.

``We've thrown everything at the monster,'' Bradley said.

But those efforts have barely slowed the staggering surge in medical bills that many analysts believe is a bigger threat to GM than any rival automaker.

The world's largest automaker is being driven deep into financial trouble not only by the cars of its competitors, but also by the medical bills of its own workers and retirees.

Last year, GM spent $5.3 billion on health care -- enough to buy a GMC Yukon for each of its U.S. employees. By 2008, General Motors will probably spend more on health care in the United States than on its hourly-worker payroll.

The economics have become so upside-down that Warren Buffett calls GM ``a health and benefits company with an auto company attached.'' Bradley has heard that joke before, and it always makes him squirm. He knows health care bills are crippling the company. He also is painfully aware of what that means for the rest of the country.

The profits of U.S. businesses are being eaten away by rising health care costs -- a financial burden not borne by their competitors based in other countries. An estimated 46 million Americans have no health insurance at all, and those with insurance are paying more for less coverage.

Rest of article (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/15654140.htm)My god that was long... :eek:Well, it's a big issue and I appreciate your willingness to discuss it. :thumbs:

Well okay then,

If you would break your marriage prommise because you can, you would probably lie because you can aswell.

I think he's confused about when that line was used. Clinton never said he lied because he could...he said he had the affair because he could...HUGE difference.

If a company was forced to provide medical insurance, it would have to raise prices. If it had to raise prices, it would make it less competitave.

Nothing is free.




Yes, actually I do. I think the overall cost of medical care would decrease dramatically and would improve if we privatized everything. There would be those people who would not be able to afford the care, and that is unfortunate. There are also people on the streets that are unable to afford food and shelter - yet it is not the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone manages their money, or has enough for their expenses.

:

Well okay then,

If you would break your marriage prommise because you can, you would probably lie because you can aswell.
Well except the quote you are using to try to belittle him is preceded by "I think I did something for the worst possible reason. Just because I could," said Mr. Clinton. ... when asked why he had the affair with her.

I can't believe how many of you guys are solely focused on what he did with a young woman while soldiers of yours die in Iraq. Frankly it angers me that little tiny Canada has lost 9 more young soldiers over in Afganastan in September while the big crime is an affair. Afganastan was the place to be but you are spread too thin and daily young boys die. You can't justify it no matter how many women Clinton slept with.

I have spoken extensively with Canadians about their universal health care plan and while they like the universal coverage aspect of it the rest leaves them cold. They do not get to see the doctor of their choice, there is a long wait to see a physician or to enter a hospital for any but emergency care. The care is not up to the standard of care in the United States.

Some elective surgeries can take months to get, and people are in fact discouraged from seeking them. Many Canadians come to the United States for their health care because it is simply better than what they get in Canada.

The one good thing about the Canadian system is drug purchasing. That is an area where the U.S. is lagging behind our northern neighbor.

The ony way I would want to see universal health care in the U.S. is if it was in conjunction with the present system of private health care insurance. I am not willing to give up the right to choose my own doctor and to enter a hospital in a timely fashion.

FT has entertainment value :thumbs:
In spades.

I have spoken extensively with Canadians about their universal health care plan and while they like the universal coverage aspect of it the rest leaves them cold. They do not get to see the doctor of their choice, there is a long wait to see a physician or to enter a hospital for any but emergency care. The care is not up to the standard of care in the United States.

Some elective surgeries can take months to get, and people are in fact discouraged from seeking them. Many Canadians come to the United States for their health care because it is simply better than what they get in Canada.

The one good thing about the Canadian system is drug purchasing. That is an area where the U.S. is lagging behind our northern neighbor.

The ony way I would want to see universal health care in the U.S. is if it was in conjunction with the present system of private health care insurance. I am not willing to give up the right to choose my own doctor and to enter a hospital in a timely fashion.
I've heard the exact same thing.

We'll just need to wait a couple of years to see if Iraq becomes stable.

If Iraq becomes stable, it is a big win for the US, Britan, and our Canadian allies. It will also be a very big blow to the terrorists.

One thing is for sure, if we did not invade Iraq in 2003, we would surly need to in the future.


Well except the quote you are using to try to belittle him is preceded by "I think I did something for the worst possible reason. Just because I could," said Mr. Clinton. ... when asked why he had the affair with her.

I can't believe how many of you guys are solely focused on what he did with a young woman while soldiers of yours die in Iraq. Frankly it angers me that little tiny Canada has lost 9 more young soldiers over in Afganastan in September while the big crime is an affair. Afganastan was the place to be but you are spread too thin and daily young boys die. You can't justify it no matter how many women Clinton slept with.

I'm glad I asked the question. It appears we have a fundamentally different understanding of the role of government in America. I take mine from the Preamble to the Constitution:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And you talk about non sequitur thinking? Your interpretation here is a perfect example of pie in the sky rationale.
I don't think your bold step backwards into Victorian thinking will help us achieve any of these laudable goals. Leaving our 'unfortunates' to die of treatable diseases because they can't 'manage their money' will not make us stronger.
How will it make us weaker? And we're not "leaving them to die" - they're not doing what they're supposed to. Now, given the obvious - how is that MY problem?
We already have 40 million uninsured and your answer is to take away insurance from even more millions of people? Leaving aside for the moment the social unrest your idea would surely foment, it would deny coverage to poor children, the elderly and disabled veterans. That isn't exactly promoting the general welfare.
Nonsense. Our system does provide for the general welfare of our society with one caveat: you have to work it. The only exception I would make is for disabled veterans, and even in those cases, they should have to prove unequivocally that their injuries resulted from service time, and nothing else.

why is it that democrats always accuse people of bringing up the monica lewinsky thing.. but when some accuse Clinton of lying.. THEY bring it up? Monica-Gate has NOTHING to do with this... stop trying to represent Clintons "lies" or mistruths as unharmful, closet sexual acts... he did much more than that... monica-gate was just the icing on the cake, the cherry on top.. whatever you want to call it.

He committed perjury in a court of law. He lied under oath. That is a bit more serious than simply using the authority of his office to get a naive young intern to give him a hum job.

He committed perjury in a court of law. He lied under oath. That is a bit more serious than simply using the authority of his office to get a naive young intern to give him a hum job.
He lied about a blowjob. I think I'll forgive him.

Frogger, you have some valid points here. I am one of those that LOVE the universal care plan. It is the ethical thing to do in countries that can afford it.

I have spoken extensively with Canadians about their universal health care plan and while they like the universal coverage aspect of it the rest leaves them cold. They do not get to see the doctor of their choice, there is a long wait to see a physician or to enter a hospital for any but emergency care..
We can chose our family doctor so that is not an issue. There is no long wait to see your family physician so that is not an issue either. If you need a specialist that is usually left up to the discretion of your doctor but if you are wise enough to know who is the best in your particular area your doctor will listen. It can take a very long time however to get into that specialist's office. The level of frustration with that is huge and rightly so.




The care is not up to the standard of care in the United States.
I disagree, we have some of the best specialists in the world considering our population.

Some elective surgeries can take months to get, and people are in fact discouraged from seeking them..
True.
Also our emergency rooms are a nightmare. Part of the reason for that is the current attitude of people in our society today which involves a lack of common sense. They hit the emerge room for a viral infection. Or they wait until they are so sick that they need to bypass their doctor’s office.

Many Canadians come to the United States for their health care because it is simply better than what they get in Canada.
I would say it is speedier but to say better is misleading. A good surgeon is a good surgeon period. Our care is absolutely up to the care in the States in most places. A basic city with relatively the same population in the States would definitely have equal care. You do have a huge advantage in your big cities. Of course there are world specialists that can not be found anywhere else in the world. You have 10 times our population.

Your testing facilities are amazing. My partner and I have certainly given consideration to and will likely in the near future pay to have extensive testing done that determines likelihood of future diseases such as cancer, heart etc. We will go south of the border for that and pay for it.

The one good thing about the Canadian system is drug purchasing. That is an area where the U.S. is lagging behind our northern neighbor..
Our drugs are cheaper than yours even the ones we import from the States so this is true...sort of. Drugs are not covered unless you have a health plan. Many do, many do not. We could do better here as well.

The only way I would want to see universal health care in the U.S. is if it was in conjunction with the present system of private health care insurance. I am not willing to give up the right to choose my own doctor and to enter a hospital in a timely fashion.
This part I agree with if I can modify it a bit. Our system here in Canada has deteriorated here over the last decade. A two tiered system may be the answer. A public one which would serve all supplemented by a private one for specialty things such as by-pass surgery etc. paid for by the individual.

Frogger, you have some valid points here. I am one of those that LOVE the universal care plan. It is the ethical thing to do in countries that can afford it.
It's not that Americans can't "afford" it; we just don't wanna pay for it, and for good reason.

I was on the bus not too long ago, and some filthy old drunkie was talking to his buddy about Medicaid. With regards to the conversation they had, I about threw up. Before I got on the bus I saw him smoking a cigarette, and he reeked of stale beer (I know this because the stink of old liquor permeated the air around him). Because I was within ear-shot of this wasteoid (and due to the fact that he was incredibly loud), I was able to hear him say that he spent a few years incarcerated for drugs, alcohol, fighting, and a sundry of other pleasantries at Statesville maximum security penitentiary in Joliet, IL. Come to find out, he worked at the at Harrah's casino as a dishwasher (at 40-50 years of age, no less), and said he was on public aid. At first, I thought, with sympathy, "what a loser", and I tried to tune him out, but my effort was futile. My commute is about an hour long, and much to my dismay, they didn’t leave before I did. Being that I couldn't move, and seeing as to how I couldn't ignore him, I gave up. I heard him say that he experienced a drug-induced cardiac arrest 5 years ago, and luckily enough, they were able to revive him. Soon after he came to, the medical professionals responsible for saving his life informed him that if he wanted to live much longer, he'd need open-heart surgery. Medicaid to the rescue, and 90,000 tax dollars later - he had two valves replaced, a triple bypass, and 1 month recovery time all gratis of our system. Now, if there was ONE man that I didn't wanna hear I helped pay for, it was this asshole. I simply couldn't believe it.

In short, THAT'S when I feel betrayed by my government. There’s no free lunch in my world.

I agree................ America is full of loosers like this guy. This country has the most un-healthy population in the world.

We can even toss drug and alochol use aside. Too many people make Mcdonalds and Booger King a part of their daily meal plan.

This is a big reason why they are so un-healthy. If we have a big health care plan, the you and I will be paying for these peoples un-healthy choices.


It's not that Americans can't "afford" it; we just don't wanna pay for it, and for good reason.

I was on the bus not too long ago, and some filthy old drunkie was talking to his buddy about Medicaid. With regards to the conversation they had, I about threw up. Before I got on the bus I saw him smoking a cigarette, and he reeked of stale beer (I know this because the stink of old liquor permeated the air around him). Because I was within ear-shot of this wasteoid (and due to the fact that he was incredibly loud), I was able to hear him say that he spent a few years incarcerated for drugs, alcohol, fighting, and a sundry of other pleasantries at Statesville maximum security penitentiary in Joliet, IL. Come to find out, he worked at the at Harrah's casino as a dishwasher (at 40-50 years of age, no less), and said he was on public aid. At first, I thought, with sympathy, "what a loser", and I tried to tune him out, but my effort was futile. My commute is about an hour long, and much to my dismay, they didn’t leave before I did. Being that I couldn't move, and seeing as to how I couldn't ignore him, I gave up. I heard him say that he experienced a drug-induced cardiac arrest 5 years ago, and luckily enough, they were able to revive him. Soon after he came to, the medical professionals responsible for saving his life informed him that if he wanted to live much longer, he'd need open-heart surgery. Medicaid to the rescue, and 90,000 tax dollars later - he had two valves replaced, a triple bypass, and 1 month recovery time all gratis of our system. Now, if there was ONE man that I didn't wanna hear I helped pay for, it was this asshole. I simply couldn't believe it.

In short, THAT'S when I feel betrayed by my government. There’s no free lunch in my world.

And you talk about non sequitur thinking? Your interpretation here is a perfect example of pie in the sky rationale.What interpretation? I only posted what the Constitution states. You and I can argue about how best to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare but the words themselves are what they are.How will it make us weaker? And we're not "leaving them to die" - they're not doing what they're supposed to. Now, given the obvious - how is that MY problem?The logic behind keeping children healthy is much the same as why we educate them (although I would not be surprised to discover you think public education a waste of your taxdollars as well). Healthy children with an education have a better chance of growing up to be productive members of society than do unhealthy uneducated ones.

As for the elderly I'm sure there would be a short-term benefit to cutting off their healthcare. After all, they are for the most part a financial burden to the rest of us and give little in return. The savings would be immediate and they're all going to die anyway so why not? Of course, there's the problem that these folks have worked all their lives to build the society that you enjoy and did so with the reasonable expectation that they'd be able to see a doctor when they got old and sick. But why should you care? It's not YOUR problem! They're just a bunch of losers who weren't smart enough to invest well. They didn't work the system right.

I shouldn't be amazed; I really shouldn't, but I am. For all the whining we hear from the rignt about 'class warfare' it's quite revealing to hear what they'd really do if they had the chance. They'd wage class warfare like there's no tomorrow, the consequences be damned. You think treating our elderly like dirt will make us stronger by saving a few bucks? You think that will insure domestic tranquility? Not in the long run, Prae. No freaking way.

If we have a big health care plan, the you and I will be paying for these peoples un-healthy choices.You already ARE paying, sisko. Don't you get that yet?

It's not that Americans can't "afford" it; we just don't wanna pay for it, and for good reason.
Um, you are already paying in spades. What you are failing to see here is that when people are denied basic needs (of which health care is a part) they will take it. So the kid who loses his momma because she died young because she could not afford adequate health care will find a new family...called a gang.

I was on the bus not too long ago, and some filthy old drunkie was talking to his buddy about Medicaid. With regards to the conversation they had, I about threw up. Before I got on the bus I saw him smoking a cigarette, and he reeked of stale beer (I know this because the stink of old liquor permeated the air around him). Because I was within ear-shot of this wasteoid (and due to the fact that he was incredibly loud), I was able to hear him say that he spent a few years incarcerated for drugs, alcohol, fighting, and a sundry of other pleasantries at Statesville maximum security penitentiary in Joliet, IL. Come to find out, he worked at the at Harrah's casino as a dishwasher (at 40-50 years of age, no less), and said he was on public aid. At first, I thought, with sympathy, "what a loser", and I tried to tune him out, but my effort was futile. My commute is about an hour long, and much to my dismay, they didn’t leave before I did. Being that I couldn't move, and seeing as to how I couldn't ignore him, I gave up. I heard him say that he experienced a drug-induced cardiac arrest 5 years ago, and luckily enough, they were able to revive him. Soon after he came to, the medical professionals responsible for saving his life informed him that if he wanted to live much longer, he'd need open-heart surgery. Medicaid to the rescue, and 90,000 tax dollars later - he had two valves replaced, a triple bypass, and 1 month recovery time all gratis of our system. Now, if there was ONE man that I didn't wanna hear I helped pay for, it was this asshole. I simply couldn't believe it.
I hear your disdain but I don't understand it. You know nothing of where he's been or what he has done or the people's lives he has touched. His whole life can not be reduced to an hours conversation. No one can put a price on it. Not for health care anyway. And in the long run, keeping people healthy from a young age saves huge dollars later.

In short, THAT'S when I feel betrayed by my government. There’s no free lunch in my world
Sure there is...just do enough drugs to scramble your brain, drink enough liquor like Bush to damage your brain...eat enough fast food to destroy your arteries, get fired from your job, and YOU TOO can get public assistance... we just have to stretch that safety net a tad to include free health care. :thumbs:

The "asshole" incident recieved almost no coverage by the mainstream Media. Had it been Clinton saying it, the hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh would have been screaming bloody murder.During the Lieberman/Cheney debate, Lieberman purposely put the words "big time" into the debate as a reference to the Cheney retort to "asshole".
The next day all the cable stations revived the story, which had been already covered the prior week.

Senator Leahy hugged Cheney on the floor at congress (while congress was not in session). It was a photo-op for him in case he needed to be shown supporting the administration. Cheney angrily whispered "Go ---- yourself". The only people who knew about it were Cheney, Leahy and Leahy's press secretary.
Around the same time, Kerry did an interview with Rolling Stone. In it he said that the Bush Administration "----ed up" the war on terror.
Which got more attention, the guy who angrily said it to an opportunistic enemy or the guy who apparently uses it as part of his ordinary language.

From reading that, I'd assume that Richard Clark is #1 a conservative and #2 retarded.Actually, President Clinton referenced Clarke's book about eleven times during the interview. He claimed he was the go-to guy on this issue.

Senator Leahy hugged Cheney on the floor at congress (while congress was not in session). It was a photo-op for him in case he needed to be shown supporting the administration. Cheney angrily whispered "Go ---- yourself". The only people who knew about it were Cheney, Leahy and Leahy's press secretary.
Around the same time, Kerry did an interview with Rolling Stone. In it he said that the Bush Administration "----ed up" the war on terror.
Which got more attention, the guy who angrily said it to an opportunistic enemy or the guy who apparently uses it as part of his ordinary language.

I have a hard time believing that any person would find Kerry's use of the word in the context that he used it more objectionable than how Cheney uttered it in the context that he did. It's like comparing jaywalking to robbing a store.

Angrily telling another person to -"Go fuck yourself!"- while you are inches from their face is light years away from giving a private interview and opining that some thing was "fucked up" by someone.

Let alone that it was the sitting vice president who did it, let alone the fact that he did it on the floor of the Senate.

I love it when powerful men utter vulgar profanities in our halls of Congress, and in interviews with the Hemp Press.

Makes me feel all warm and squishy inside.
Kind of like climbing the rope in gym class, only like times ten.
:smile2:

1. Angrily telling another person to -"Go fuck yourself!"- while you are inches from their face is light years away from giving a private interview and opining that some thing was "fucked up" by someone.
2. Let alone that it was the sitting vice president who did it, let alone the fact that he did it on the floor of the Senate.1. You're kidding. Whispering to two people is much more "private" than a Rolling Stone interview. So if the private nature is relevant, you're on my side on this one.

2. The Senate was not in session. There is nothing sacred about the room itself, is there?

What interpretation? I only posted what the Constitution states.
Yes, about providing for the "common good". You and I differ. I DO think we provide for the common good, and you don't. I DON'T think providing universal health care is our government's job. It's not like getting the proper medical treatment is prohibitively expensive, and if the person in question hasn't made the right decisions in life, then too bad. We're not here to bail people out.

I've always been a fan of giving irresponsible people just enough rope to hang themselves. Apparently, you and I see things differently.
(although I would not be surprised to discover you think public education a waste of your taxdollars as well).
Well, to be perfectly honest, I would like to see it privatized. Our public education system is abysmal, and unfortunately, that's not up for debate. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if most 10 year old Namibian children knew more about our country than the majority of our 15 year olds.
Healthy children with an education have a better chance of growing up to be productive members of society than do unhealthy uneducated ones.
It's not our job as a society to ensure that parents are doing their jobs. First and foremost, what you've described here is the parent's job, not ours. I mean, seriously - on whose shoulders should the onus lie if not on mom's and dad's? I don't believe in giving a "leg up" when it's fairly easy to get one by working hard and making the right decisions.

"If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere"...
As for the elderly I'm sure there would be a short-term benefit to cutting off their healthcare.
100% correct.
After all, they are for the most part a financial burden to the rest of us and give little in return.
Again, 100% correct.
The savings would be immediate and they're all going to die anyway so why not?
Hard to argue with that logic.
Of course, there's the problem that these folks have worked all their lives to build the society that you enjoy and did so with the reasonable expectation that they'd be able to see a doctor when they got old and sick.
"Reasonable expectation"? I don't think so. Most people work all their lives to SAVE for retirement. If they didn't save enough to pay for secondary insurance, then whose fault is that? If they can't afford to take care of themselves (and kids aren't part of the equation), then too bad. Say arrivederci, San Giorgio -

NOT. MY. JOB.
But why should you care? It's not YOUR problem! They're just a bunch of losers who weren't smart enough to invest well. They didn't work the system right.
Correctamundo.
You think treating our elderly like dirt will make us stronger by saving a few bucks?
By asking them to pull their own weight, I'm treating them like dirt!?!? You know, if money's the real issue, then maybe they should consider putting the house on a reverse mortgage. What kind of loser doesn't own at least ONE home at 65?

Again...NOT MY PROBLEM.
You think that will insure domestic tranquility? Not in the long run, Prae. No freaking way.
Domestic tranquility is a byproduct of responsibility.

Yep I am paying now, but if we get what Hillary wants,I will be paying more, and I am not willing to pay because some loosers have a very very bad habit.


You already ARE paying, sisko. Don't you get that yet?

It's not that Americans can't "afford" it; we just don't wanna pay for it, and for good reason.

I was on the bus not too long ago, and some filthy old drunkie was talking to his buddy about Medicaid. With regards to the conversation they had, I about threw up. Before I got on the bus I saw him smoking a cigarette, and he reeked of stale beer (I know this because the stink of old liquor permeated the air around him). Because I was within ear-shot of this wasteoid (and due to the fact that he was incredibly loud), I was able to hear him say that he spent a few years incarcerated for drugs, alcohol, fighting, and a sundry of other pleasantries at Statesville maximum security penitentiary in Joliet, IL. Come to find out, he worked at the at Harrah's casino as a dishwasher (at 40-50 years of age, no less), and said he was on public aid. At first, I thought, with sympathy, "what a loser", and I tried to tune him out, but my effort was futile. My commute is about an hour long, and much to my dismay, they didn’t leave before I did. Being that I couldn't move, and seeing as to how I couldn't ignore him, I gave up. I heard him say that he experienced a drug-induced cardiac arrest 5 years ago, and luckily enough, they were able to revive him. Soon after he came to, the medical professionals responsible for saving his life informed him that if he wanted to live much longer, he'd need open-heart surgery. Medicaid to the rescue, and 90,000 tax dollars later - he had two valves replaced, a triple bypass, and 1 month recovery time all gratis of our system. Now, if there was ONE man that I didn't wanna hear I helped pay for, it was this asshole. I simply couldn't believe it.

In short, THAT'S when I feel betrayed by my government. There’s no free lunch in my world.

Excuse me for butting in here, but unless my eyes deceive me (which I don't think they do as I've had them examined recently by a doctor of my choice because I'm fortunate enough to work and have health insurance), YOUR profile sez you enjoy good liquor and fine tobacco. Only difference between you and your 'bum' is that you describe your ugly habits in much nicer words than you describe his... and he's lived longer than you. No one is immune to tough times. God forbid bad things happen to you in the next twenty years that render you a wasteoid in the eyes of a young man you sit close to on the bus.

Unfortunately, none of us can EVER say NEVER. And that includes you, sweetcheeks.

:)
SMW

Trust me, SMW, that man and I have NOTHING in common.

Trust me, SMW, that man and I have NOTHING in common.

He drinks and smokes... YOU drink and smoke.

That may be where the similarities end TODAY. But seeing as how you have much more life to experience before you reach his age... there's just no guarantee you won't end up in the same condition.

No offense intended, BTW. Being young and thinking you know all the answers to life's problems isn't a bad thing. Temporary, maybe... but not bad.

:)
SMW

YOUR profile sez you enjoy good liquor and fine tobacco. Only difference between you and your 'bum' is that you describe your ugly habits in much nicer words than you describe his...SMW, I think quantity makes for an appropriate distinction between Messrs. Bum and Praetorian.
Your profile says you have one boyfriend. If you had fifty that'd make you a whore. Do you feel you are close to whoredom?
I guess one boyfriend today could lead to that.

"If you have to exaggerate my point to make me wrong, you've already given up."

'nuff said?

He drinks and smokes... YOU drink and smoke.
Lady, I don't know you, and I wouldn't presume to compare you to anyone else (especially if I were to use, as the basis for my comparison, the fucking PROFILE page on Allforums.net) because it's not exactly like the line-for-line dialogue here serves as a decent paradigm for understanding different people and situations. Brooks makes a good point; I don't reek of rotgut liquor on a random Wednesday, and I don't smoke Basics. If I do drink, it's on a Friday or Saturday evening, and it's usually 3 or 4 single malt scotches, and occasionally, I enjoy smoking a fresh Arturo Fuente Churchill. If I do smoke a cigarette, it's most likely a Davidoff, and that's only when I'm drinking Grey Goose on the rocks or beer (which is incredibly rare).
That may be where the similarities end TODAY.
The "similarities" you speak of are figments of your imagination. Listen....I'm sure being the protector of all things derelict helps you sleep better at night, but seriously....you don't know me. I have a degree, I'm fairly intelligent, I come from a good family, and I have a decent work ethic.

Why am I explaining this....???
Being young and thinking you know all the answers to life's problems isn't a bad thing. Temporary, maybe... but not bad.
I'm 29 (actually, almost 30); that's NOT young.

Lady, I don't know you, and I wouldn't presume to compare you to anyone else (especially if I were to use, as the basis for my comparison, the fucking PROFILE page on Allforums.net) because it's not exactly like the line-for-line dialogue here serves as a paradigm for understanding various people and situations. Brooks makes a good point; I don't reek of rotgut liquor on a random Wednesday, and I don't smoke Basics. If I do drink, it's on a Friday or Saturday evening, and it's usually 3 or 4 single malt scotches, and occasionally, I enjoy smoking a fresh Hoyo de Monterrey. If I do smoke a cigarette, it's most likely a Davidoff, and that's only when I'm drinking Grey Goose on the rocks or beer (which is incredibly rare).

The "similarities" you speak of are figments of your imagination. Listen....I'm sure being the protector of all things derelict helps you sleep better, but seriously....you don't know me. I have a degree, I'm fairly intelligent, I come from a good family, and I have a decent work ethic.

Why am I explaining this....???

I'm 29 (actually, almost 30); that's NOT young.

"A rich man without charity is a rogue; and perhaps it would be no difficult matter to prove that he is also a fool.
Henry Fielding (1707 - 1754)"

I'm sure the world is happy for you that you can afford the best of vices. But they're still vices. And I challenge you to prove your lungs know the difference between a Davidoff and a Basic.

But that's not really the point of my popping in here to raise your hackles... and hopefully your awareness.

There, but for the grace of God, go you... and me... and Brooks... and everyone else with whom we share this small green planet. I'm sure you're a very intelligent, talented and decent young man. But knower of the answers to all of society's problems, you're not. Nor am I. Nor is the bum on the bus. If you wanna make a real difference, go volunteer at a homeless shelter, mentor a school child or visit a nursing home. But at least quit throwing rocks at those you deem beneath you. Or at the VERY least, revise your profile so it doesn't appear you're braggin about the same weaknesses you abhor in your fellow man.

Peace out.

:)
SMW

Or at the VERY least, revise your profile so it doesn't appear you're braggin about the same weaknesses you abhor in your fellow man.

Peace out.

:)
SMW
I think it's the frequency that I abhor. The man is a DISHWASHER at 50 years old, for Chrissakes. He's a convicted felon. This isn't a "poor vs. rich" issue; it's an issue of hard working people, like me, having to pay for someone else's bad habits. I may smoke and drink (occasionally), but at least I won't put anyone out if I have medical problems. THAT'S my point.

That's all I was trying to say.

I'm glad I asked the question. It appears we have a fundamentally different understanding of the role of government in America. I take mine from the Preamble to the Constitution:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't think your bold step backwards into Victorian thinking will help us achieve any of these laudable goals. Leaving our 'unfortunates' to die of treatable diseases because they can't 'manage their money' will not make us stronger. We already have 40 million uninsured and your answer is to take away insurance from even more millions of people? Leaving aside for the moment the social unrest your idea would surely foment, it would deny coverage to poor children, the elderly and disabled veterans. That isn't exactly promoting the general welfare.
Yes, we should promote general wellfare, though I still don't believe that it means we should provide general welfare for all. I think we differ on that one word, 'promote'.

We obviously cannot treat everyone for every problem they have or we would go bankrupt. Homeless for example - we do not give them permanent homes. Even in countries with universal healthcare, they usually don't let you choose your doctor or treat every ailment.

One needs to consider the cost of universal healthcare to the cost of private healthcare. I believe that the cost of a properly-executed completely privatized healthcare would be much lower than the overall cost of universal healthcare, and the few people that are not able to pay for their medical aid would an unfortunate cost; though there are many charitable organizations that may help out. The generous people, such as yourself, could help to pay for those that could not afford it.

In order to provide for the common defense we need a strong economy. Right now our economy is being threatened by the pernicious effects of rising health care costs. There is an answer to the problem. Nearly every industrialized nation in the Western world has adopted it except for us. The answer is universal health care and it's high time we joined the rest of the 21st Century instead of repeating the mistakes of the 19th. Private healthcare is less humanitarian, yet makes much, much more economical sense. Universal healthcare would do the opposite of saving money. I don't understand how you can think it will.

If you can afford it our healthcare is the best in the world. If you can't you're SOL.
Yup

I fail to see how privatizing health care and insuring fewer people will help us fight the problem of obesity.
I didn't mean to imply that it would. I was simply stating that we are an unhealthy country, and our costs for healthcare would be higher (per capita) than the average country regardless of the system in place.

First of all the baby boom is hardly an exclusively American phenomena. Most countries in the world experienced a sudden population growth in the years following WWII. Secondly, we know that the greatest portion of healthcare dollars are spent in the final year of a person's life. This means that as the boomers age the healthcare crisis will be greatly exacerbated. The worst is yet to come.
True, yet the baby boomers affected us more than most countries.

Also true, the worst is yet to come. I don't doubt it.

Last I heard Starbucks was revamping their plan, but that is neither here nor there. 40 million Americans can't work at Starbucks.
With Starbucks I was simply making a point. If you can get healthcare working at a place like Starbucks (not an incredibly hard job to get), you should be able to find another job that offers it easily.

Providing insurance does not hurt our businesses? I must say you have some rather odd notions. Please consider the following:

GM on a crash course with health care costs...
Providing an insurance policy to a worker should cost less than what the worker would pay for their own insurance since the company is buying in bulk. The worker should factor in that they get insurance too when they apply for the job. If you get paid 5000 a month, with insurance that would normally cost you 500 a month, and you plan on having insurance anyways - then you would probably choose that job over another job that paid you 5250 a month with no insurance. That is why I said that insurance shouldn't hurt businesses.

The numbers I saw in that article are insane. There is a problem there - that is not normal.

Actually, President Clinton referenced Clarke's book about eleven times during the interview. He claimed he was the go-to guy on this issue.

Ok, sorry. He's not retarded - his statement was though.

1. You're kidding. Whispering to two people is much more "private" than a Rolling Stone interview. So if the private nature is relevant, you're on my side on this one.

I just view one person angrily telling another person, face to face, to "Go fuck yourself!" exponentially more rude and/or uncouth or unfitting behavior from a person --especially the Vice President of the US--- than it is for another politician to simply say in an interview ----"well, so and so "fucked up" something"

2. The Senate was not in session. There is nothing sacred about the room itself, is there?

For me personally?!?!?

NOT in the slightest. Quite the opposite. I find the concept of assigning things the title of "sacred" to be superstitious idiocy.

But what I find so absolutely goddamned sickening is that there are millions upon millions of rightwingers in this country who would be screaming from the rooftops about how "sacred" the floor of the Senate is, or how "sacred" the Oval Office is, or how "sacred" the halls of government are had it been a non-rightwinger who did what Cheney did.

I personally am not offended in the slightest by the word "fuck"......I don't care if the Pope or Cheney or GWBush gets on the balcony of the White House with a microphone and tells the world to "kiss his fucking ass". It would not bother me.

My point here is the incredible hypocrisy of the umpteen millions of rightwing whiners in this nation in regards to criticizing public figures. If a liberal or progressive politician (iow, a politician who the Public views as being less than 100% consevative) does something that could be construed as "bad", or possibly illegal, or objectionable in any way, they will vehemently demand that he be impeached and run out of town on a rail. Later, when a Republican does something 10 times as bad, their attitude is --"Oh, so what? Who cares? Let's forget about it and move along."

"If you have to exaggerate my point to make me wrong, you've already given up."'nuff said?No exaggeration. Just a duplication of your analogy (which nicely mirrored the original's vapidity),

Ok, sorry. He's not retarded - his statement was though.He's only intelligent when used as a defense by President Clinton.

I just view one person angrily telling another person, face to face, to "Go fuck yourself!" exponentially more rude and/or uncouth or unfitting behavior from a person --especially the Vice President of the US--- than it is for another politician to simply say in an interview ----"well, so and so "fucked up" something"Well, even the law is more lenient of those things done in anger,

What bothered me more about Kerry's words in Rolling Stone were that they were probably fake and calculated. But still, he said it and got nary a bit of criticism.

If you wanna make a real difference, go volunteer at a homeless shelter, mentor a school child or visit a nursing home. But at least quit throwing rocks at those you deem beneath you. The taxes Praetorian is forced to fork over, because of his own hard work, do more for these people than could be done by peeling potatoes for them occasionally.
If I were a derelict on a bus and I had a choice between Prae's coerced support or your good wishes, I'd choose the former.

He's only intelligent when used as a defense by President Clinton.

haha

"Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States".


His statement here says that Clinton was heavily criticized for 'Wag the Dog' tactics. Now if he is putting those words in the mouths of critics, and those are not his opinions also, then I have nothing against him or that statement. It is not clear, since the statement is taken out of context, whether he brought up the topic in order to criticize Clinton, or to simply state what Clinton's critics are saying.

I should not have been so quick to condemn him - I originally skimmed over it and though those were his thoughts as well.

What bothered me more about Kerry's words in Rolling Stone were that they were probably fake and calculated.

I agree.

I have no doubt that they (Kerry's words) were uttered with a mind toward the outlet (the Rolling Stone) he was speaking thru. Kerry, however, was making an observation, and was not directing his own anger or hatred toward anyone by using the words "fucked up".

Anyone who was informed about the incident with VP Cheney should be far, far more troubled by Cheney's angry **Go fuck yourself!** words in that they were undoubtedly spoken in dead earnest and with extreme malice.

Now if he is putting those words in the mouths of critics, and those are not his opinions also, then I have nothing against him..
I think his "distracted president" scenario is a way to excuse Clinton's inaction and blame the other side.

Anyone who was informed about the incident with VP Cheney should be far, far more troubled by Cheney's angry **Go fuck yourself!** words in that they were undoubtedly spoken in dead earnest and with extreme malice.I think we've all said f--- in anger and it's normal. I think it's juvenile when it's used calmly as a part of everyday language.
In this sense we differ in our opinion as well as our posts.

I think we've all said f--- in anger and it's normal. I think it's juvenile when it's used calmly as a part of everyday language.
In this sense we differ in our opinion as well as our posts.

Hell.. Kerry was quoted cussing out one of his bodyguards for getting in his way and causing him to fall while skiing or something like that... it wasn't nearly as publicized though....

I think we've all said f--- in anger and it's normal. I think it's juvenile when it's used calmly as a part of everyday language.


Ok......so you regard it as juvenile when "used calmly in everyday language".

So Kerry could --if one agreed with that opinion-- have been guilty of being "juvenile" in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

Vice President Cheney --otoh-- said "Go fuck yourself" on the floor of the Senate, aiming it directly at a US Senator, in a hateful, malicious way.

I think it's clear which one; ---hateful and malicious toward a member of Congress versus juvenile in a magazine interview-- most people would find more disturbing and more uncouth coming from a high ranking politician.

Isn't or wasn't Dick Cheney the "leader" of the Senate? I'm not sure what that specific title is, however that puts even more pressure on him to conduct himself with far more maturity. Not to mention, he is the Vice President of the United States which again puts more pressure on him to conduct himself in a proper fashion.

Personally I would rather have someone use that phrase it in a childish way, than a mean spirited, immature and hateful way.

Isn't or wasn't Dick Cheney the "leader" of the Senate? I'm not sure what that specific title is

He's the President of the Senate.

But.....the same group of santimonious righties in this country who screeched that Clinton "dishonored" the office he held are for some reason suddenly far more forgiving when the Vice President, gets up on the floor of the Senate and in a seething manner, says --"Go fuck yourself!"-- to a US Senator.

(BTW...it was Sen. Leahy that he told to fuck himself. When the incident occurred, Leahy had approached Cheney on the floor of the Senate and tried to make small talk.)

I think it's the frequency that I abhor. The man is a DISHWASHER at 50 years old, for Chrissakes. He's a convicted felon. This isn't a "poor vs. rich" issue; it's an issue of hard working people, like me, having to pay for someone else's bad habits. I may smoke and drink (occasionally), but at least I won't put anyone out if I have medical problems. THAT'S my point.

That's all I was trying to say.

You and I are not that far off regarding political views. I also resent the hell outta paying for people who WON'T try to help themselves. In fact, my most recent rage comes from providing hurricane relief for every person who CHOOSES to live on the coast. Just don't see how my gov't is responsible for rebuilding their lives... in the same place... so the same thing will undoubtedly happen again. I think that if you CHOOSE to enjoy that ocean view, maybe you should pay a special tax that covers the damages you'll probably incur at some point. But of course, since I live in the middle of a giant prairie, I'd probably feel differently if a tornado swept thru and wiped out my house -- then I'd be the one running to the gov't screaming, "HELP ME!!!"

Not claiming to know all the answers here. Just saying most people have little or no control of what happens during their lifetime. No matter how much you think you've got things figured out for yourself from the cradle to the grave, nobody has any guarantee that they won't get stuck by some horrific disease or accident or fall under the power of drugs or alcohol because they're not strong enough to fight the addiction.

All I'm saying is that, as a civilized society, it's our duty as the 'able' to help those who are weaker than we are. And that includes children, sick people and the elderly. Otherwise, what's the point of being human?

:)
SMW

Ok......so you regard it as juvenile when "used calmly in everyday language".Like I said, you'll hear it from me if I drop a hammer on my toe. But you won't hear me bandy it about as if I were a 15 year old in a gym locker room.
You and I differ in this regard.

Isn't or wasn't Dick Cheney the "leader" of the Senate? I'm not sure what that specific title is, however that puts even more pressure on him to conduct himself with far more maturity. It's funny what we're willing to forgive (I'm speaking generally and not picking on you specifically).
President Bush mentions democracy in a UN speech and is called empirialistic and Hugo Chavez makes a buffoon of himself, but that's okay.
We waterboard while they mutilate the living, but that's okay.
President Bush says nucular but Major Owens, a black congressman from the Bronx can't put six words together, but that's okay.
Cheney angrily and quietly tells off an opportunistic and hypocritical political enemy but Kerry wields the word like a 12 year old sneaking out his first beer, but that's okay.
President Bush defends himself to Brian Williams and was said to be "in his face" while President Clinton insults, pokes and interrupts Chris Wallace, but that's okay.

If you believe in the "higher standard" depending on rank, you're awfully forgiving of President Clinton's behavior while he was the most powerful man in the world.

Personally I would rather have someone use that phrase it in a childish way, than a mean spirited, immature and hateful way.And by the way, you're not a virgin when it comes to the speaking-in-a-hateful-way phenomenon.

1. gets up on the floor of the Senate and in a seething manner, says --"Go fuck yourself!"-- to a US Senator.
2. (BTW...it was Sen. Leahy that he told to fuck himself. When the incident occurred, Leahy had approached Cheney on the floor of the Senate and tried to make small talk.)1. They were passing each other while the Senate was not in session and Cheney whispered. That's a far cry from "gets up on the floor of the Senate". Nice try though.

2. Leahy attempted a photo-op during a week when he personally attacked the Vice President. Just hypocrisy, that's all.

It's funny what we're willing to forgive (I'm speaking generally and not picking on you specifically).
Riiiight.

President Bush mentions democracy in a UN speech and is called empirialistic and Hugo Chavez makes a buffoon of himself, but that's okay.
When have I said that is OK?

Cheney angrily and quietly tells off an opportunistic and hypocritical political enemy but Kerry wields the word like a 12 year old sneaking out his first beer, but that's okay.
Yes, because it suggests that Kerry isn't a hateful and or rude person.

President Bush defends himself to Brian Williams and was said to be "in his face" while President Clinton insults, pokes and interrupts Chris Wallace, but that's okay.
I have never heard of the "Brian Williams incident", but whatever the case I never said that the way Clinton acted was OK I just agree with his opinion and the points he brought up.

And by the way, you're not a virgin when it comes to the speaking-in-a-hateful-way phenomenon.
I'm not the Vice President and I'm not in the Senate of the United States. Also, I'm 17 years old. Compared to the ADULTS on this forum, I hardly use hateful speech.

All I'm saying is that, as a civilized society, it's our duty as the 'able' to help those who are weaker than we are. And that includes children, sick people and the elderly.
If the help is voluntary, then fine. I don't like being coerced into "helping" people that don't help themselves, but your point is well taken.

That's one of the reasons I think social programs should be privatized and classified as non-profit and given (I think) a 403(c) status. I don't want it run by the top-heavy government in which could fuck up a two-car funeral. Why give them more money when they'll just piss it away???
Otherwise, what's the point of being human?
I understand where you're coming from, and this is going to sound terrible, but bear with me anyways -

The point of being "human" is to do exactly what humans have done forever. In short, that's look out for themselves, and only do what's in THEIR best interest. No one is truly "selfless". For example, if you’re given to helping someone, it's typically (99.99999998% of the time, that is) because it makes YOU feel better. It's either that, or it's an unspoken expectation for the person you just "helped" to reciprocate. Was Mother Theresa a hedonist? Of course she was; we all are.

It's recognizing this that allows me to say screw it. If there's nothing physically or mentally wrong with someone, then I refuse to help them if they don't help themselves first. In all honesty, what's wrong with that? As I see it - nothing.

OD, Well I'm glad you use the "pwease, i'm onwy a wittle child" defense when you're called rude.
Back when I'd criticize you for such things you'd rail that your age shouldn't be an issue.

Also, if you don't think Kerry using the F-word doesn't suggest that he's rude, use the word around your mommy and your friends' mommies.

No one is truly "selfless". For example, if you’re given to helping someone, it's typically (99.99999998% of the time, that is) because it makes YOU feel better.....a hedonist? Of course she was; we all are.
This is a great, and extremely misunderstood, point.

"If there's nothing physically or mentally wrong with someone, then I refuse to help them if they don't help themselves first."

Ahh, but therein lies the problem. Who's to be the judge of this monumental question? Private foundations (501c3's) are wonderful organizations... I know, because I spent 15 years of my life working for a few. However, it's hard to believe they're the end-all solution when one witnesses a board of trustees made up of mostly white, well-educated, well-PAID individuals making decisions about where their money goes. Private foundations are governed primarily by the IRS. The circle of politics is neverending.

Here's a fact that always gets me jacked up... when H. Ross Perot goes to the doctor, Medicare is his primary insurance.

Liberals may say -- if we give to ONE, we must give to ALL. Conservatives may say -- we should give to NOONE.

All us poor slobs in the middle just do the best we can.

:)
SMW

Cheney angrily and quietly tells off an opportunistic and hypocritical political enemy but Kerry wields the word like a 12 year old sneaking out his first beer, but that's okay.

It is very surprizing how, instead of defending Cheney, you instantly attack a Democrat to make it seem ok. On top of that, you manage to make it seem like night and day for the same issue. Kerry is instantly a '12 year old sneaking out for his first beer' while Cheney 'tells off an opportunistic and hypocritical political enemy'. Democrats are not necessarily always bad while Republicans are always good - it would be a good idea not to view them as such.


My opinion is that I don't really give a shit. It's normal for a person to swear every now and then; even in politics. If it's a democrat or a republican it makes no difference.

Hell.. Kerry was quoted cussing out one of his bodyguards for getting in his way and causing him to fall while skiing or something like that... it wasn't nearly as publicized though....
well duh... He wasn't the vice-president. The higher the status, the more money the opposite party is willing to spend on smearing them.

It is very surprizing how, instead of defending Cheney, you instantly attack a Democrat to make it seem ok. You'll have to read back a little further. I was comparing the reaction of the media, and of FT, to each incident.
Let's assume Cheney's outburst is slightly worse, than he should have gotten slightly more negative coverage. That was my point. Kerry's juvenality got NO coverage outside of the tabloid that ran the interview.
I was not comparing the two incidents except in the context of how they were covered.

Private foundations (501c3's) are wonderful organizations...
I knew it was something like that. :)
However, it's hard to believe they're the end-all solution when one witnesses a board of trustees made up of mostly white, well-educated, well-PAID individuals making decisions about where their money goes.
And why is that a problem? I'd rather have well-educated white people making decisions about money than I would a bunch of socially rejected liberals with a cup in their hands.
Private foundations are governed primarily by the IRS. The circle of politics is neverending.
Very true.
Here's a fact that always gets me jacked up... when H. Ross Perot goes to the doctor, Medicare is his primary insurance.
He certainly paid into it - why not use it?
Liberals may say -- if we give to ONE, we must give to ALL. Conservatives may say -- we should give to NOONE.
Guess where I stand.

well duh... He wasn't the vice-president. The higher the status, the more money the opposite party is willing to spend on smearing them.Here's the whole story. While Kerry was snowboarding for the cameras he fell down. He had this to say about the Secret Service Agent who is willing to sacrifice his life in order to save Kerry's:
"I don't fall down. That son-of-a-bitch ran into me.".
Wind, please think about this. Do you think if President Bush had behaved similarly this would just be an obscure piece of trivia?

"And why is that a problem? I'd rather have well-educated white people making decisions about money than I would a bunch of socially rejected liberals with a cup in their hands."

It's a problem because it's EITHER the well-heeled foundation people OR the well-heeled politicians making that call... and neither is qualified. The socially rejected liberals with cups in their hands don't have a say in the matter.

All goes back to the question... who's to say who's ABLE to work and who's not?

Not saying I have an answer. Just saying that under the current system, nobody does.

He certainly paid into it - why not use it?

If we cover a billionaire's health insurance, then we must do the same for poor folks who pay into the very same system as Perot... yes, even your undesirable bus mate.

In an ideal world, the money we (the govt) has should be used for the ones who need it... not the ones who have more than they'll ever need.

Too bad it ain't a perfect world, huh?

:)
SMW

If we cover a billionaire's health insurance, then we must do the same for poor folks who pay into the very same system as Perot... yes, even your undesirable bus mate.
The "undesirables" pay virtually NOTHING into it - and that's what chaps my ass; they're the ones using it. Ross Perot, OTOH, has paid MILLIONS into it, and HIS medical bills are apparently the ones that piss you off!?!? C'mon, SMW - Ross Perot HAS paid for his so-called "Medicare" many, many times over. THAT'S the point. I, personally, don't have that big a problem with Medicare, it's Medicaid that pisses me off.

Please prove that conservatives say we should give no none.

(Well I'm sure some say that, but I am a conservative, and I do not say that)


"

Liberals may say -- if we give to ONE, we must give to ALL. Conservatives may say -- we should give to NOONE.

All us poor slobs in the middle just do the best we can.

:)
SMW

Here's the whole story. While Kerry was snowboarding for the cameras he fell down. He had this to say about the Secret Service Agent who is willing to sacrifice his life in order to save Kerry's:
"I don't fall down. That son-of-a-bitch ran into me.".
Wind, please think about this. Do you think if President Bush had behaved similarly this would just be an obscure piece of trivia?

It's not newsworthy. If Cheney did it, it wouldn't be newsworthy either. A politician swearing is not anything spectacular as long as it's not a common occurance.

If Bush said it, I wouldn't give a shit. The only time I would mention it would be in humor, like the pretzel. In actual discussion, I wouldn't ever bring it up.

Please prove that conservatives say we should give no none.

(Well I'm sure some say that, but I am a conservative, and I do not say that)

Oh come on, she was just exaggerating to drive home a point about dems' and reps' values.

I don't consider myself either a democrat or a republican (liberal or conservative either), yet I definitely agree with the privitization side on this debate.

All goes back to the question... who's to say who's ABLE to work and who's not?

If you want to really get into whats best for our country (setting aside civil liberties) - then if you can work, you should get paid for that work. If you can't, then you should get back what you contributed to our nation, i.e. nothing. In a non-humane, black and white, 'whats best for the US' logic, the cripples and disabled should either learn to contribute something to our society, or learn to live on nothing.

Now, we actually are humane, and we care about the individual in addition to our nation, so that previous method is out of the question.

Now please answer this question for me; why are we humane at all? If a person is born as a vegetable and also unable to reason at more than a kindergarden level, what could they do to help the US or our culture? Should we spend the money to keep them alive? Does it matter how much it would cost to keep them alive?

If a person is born as a vegetable and also unable to reason at more than a kindergarden level, what could they do to help the US or our culture? Should we spend the money to keep them alive? Does it matter how much it would cost to keep them alive?Those are hard questions.

I would say the right thing to do is keep gmsisko1 alive but not take extraordinary measures.

If you want to really get into whats best for our country (setting aside civil liberties) - then if you can work, you should get paid for that work. If you can't, then you should get back what you contributed to our nation, i.e. nothing. In a non-humane, black and white, 'whats best for the US' logic, the cripples and disabled should either learn to contribute something to our society, or learn to live on nothing.

Now, we actually are humane, and we care about the individual in addition to our nation, so that previous method is out of the question.

Now please answer this question for me; why are we humane at all? If a person is born as a vegetable and also unable to reason at more than a kindergarden level, what could they do to help the US or our culture? Should we spend the money to keep them alive? Does it matter how much it would cost to keep them alive?
It is not a matter of cost. Keeping a person alive who is clinically brain dead serves no purpose. Helping someone who is physically, mentally or emotionally challenged is something only civilized or perhaps a better description would be more highly evolved people do.

Reality is (and smartmouthwoman tried to explain this) young people feel strong and able and capable and invincible. It is a wonderful feeling. However as an old lady of 50 I have found what we give out we get back. Be ware for lack of compassion, lack of understanding, impatience, intolerance and just generally a "me first and screw you attitude" begets the same. The universe has a way of teaching us what we need in order to balance us and make us whole.

Those are hard questions.

I would say the right thing to do is keep gmsisko1 alive but not take extraordinary measures.

:lolhit: hahaha, good one

It is not a matter of cost. Keeping a person alive who is clinically brain dead serves no purpose. Helping someone who is physically, mentally or emotionally challenged is something only civilized or perhaps a better description would be more highly evolved people do.
True, there is no purpose to keeping alive someone who is braindead. What about those people who's brains are alive, yet are incapable of moving. Should we keep them alive? I'm just trying to place the line on when it's ok to kill a person.

A more civilized society yes, but I challenge your claim that a more highly evolved people would help a less apt person survive. I think that more likely, a more evolved people would kill off the less capable people in their society so that they would promote the reproduction of the better specimens.

Reality is (and smartmouthwoman tried to explain this) young people feel strong and able and capable and invincible. It is a wonderful feeling. However as an old lady of 50 I have found what we give out we get back. Be ware for lack of compassion, lack of understanding, impatience, intolerance and just generally a "me first and screw you attitude" begets the same. The universe has a way of teaching us what we need in order to balance us and make us whole. I am young. I will not deny that. But I also know that I will be old someday. I am not going to spend all my money. I am saving now, and I will continue to save when I grow older. I make preperations so that I do not get hurt or have to visit the hospital - I eat right, I don't drink in excess or do any drugs, I exercise every day and always do my own research whenever I feel that I may need to visit the doctor, yet I am paying for those other people who do not eat right, who do not exercise and who basically treat their bodies like crap.

I also want to add, that my mom just turned 50. She runs 5 miles a day and has battled high cholesterol yet apart from that is in incredible shape. My dad bikes 20 miles a day (averaging around 18 mph, which I can't even keep up) since he can't run anymore and he is 63. They are both still working and have almost never been to the hospital. They are still working and contributing to society and they have also saved up for their retirement as a normal person should. That is not what I expect of everyone, but it is what I expect people to at least try to do. I expect people to try to stay healthy, especially if they can't afford to be sick and to save up for when they do eventually retire.

I do not have the utter lack of confidence in people's ability to manage their own money (I also think we should get rid of social security, it's a crappy system) and their health. If they do mismanage their money and cannot work, then they made a big mistake. They are no longer contributing to society - so we should treat them as we treat the others who do not contribute, the homeless.

By the way, this is not my original argument; just something prae brought up and it made an impression on me.

It's not newsworthy. If Cheney did it, it wouldn't be newsworthy either. A politician swearing is not anything spectacular as long as it's not a common occurance.
EXACTLY. Then why the big deal made of Cheney's comment to Leahy?

Now please answer this question for me; why are we humane at all? If a person is born as a vegetable and also unable to reason at more than a kindergarden level, what could they do to help the US or our culture? Should we spend the money to keep them alive? Does it matter how much it would cost to keep them alive?Hey buddy. If someone can function at a kindergarten level, we don't spend money to "keep them alive".
What the hell does that mean?

You are a true idiot.

I have been mugged and attacked on a couple of occasions. My attackers ran away. I am still alive

Those are hard questions.

I would say the right thing to do is keep gmsisko1 alive but not take extraordinary measures.

I have been mugged and attacked on a couple of occasions. My attackers ran away.You can't prove this. Where's your source?

You'll have to read back a little further. I was comparing the reaction of the media, and of FT, to each incident.
Let's assume Cheney's outburst is slightly worse, than he should have gotten slightly more negative coverage. That was my point. Kerry's juvenality got NO coverage outside of the tabloid that ran the interview.

Cheney's hateful words toward a US Senator were barely mentioned in the mainstream news. NEITHER incident got significant coverage.

Kerry's incident got little coverage because....well, because it is absolutely meaningless and inconsequential that a politician said the word "fuck" in a magazine interview.

Cheney's use of the "Go fuck yourself!" phrase was venomously delivered in the face of another person, and it was used by the sitting Vice President......which was ALSO given very scant coverage.....but it would have no doubt been a huge story in the national media if it were NOT a staunch conservative who did it.


I am not a Democratic NOR a Republican supporter, and I personally do not care what words people utter or who they have consensual sex with...........my point here is that IF the people, like those self-appointed morality police on the Right, who make SUCH a big issue over things like cursing or chasing women or doing other various so-called "immoral" things were to be consistent in their criticisms of what politicians do, as it regards "honor for the political office they hold" --then they ought to view what Cheney did as being FAR worse.

"The point of being "human" is to do exactly what humans have done forever. In short, that's look out for themselves, and only do what's in THEIR best interest. No one is truly "selfless". For example, if you’re given to helping someone, it's typically (99.99999998% of the time, that is) because it makes YOU feel better."

This is a great, and extremely misunderstood, point.

I beg to differ, Brooks. It is neither a great, misunderstood or even accurate statement. What it is is one young man's opinion. In my opinion, what he describes is what's hardwired into human beings for the sake of their own SURVIVAL. What's in people's hearts when they give to others is not measurable nor describable. But of course, one has to experience that unselfish desire to help others before they can recognize it.

:)
SMW

It is neither a great, misunderstood or even accurate statement. What's in people's hearts when they give to others is not measurable nor describable. But of course, one has to experience that unselfish desire to help others before they can recognize it.I think people are scared of this point when they hear the word "selfish" thrown in because we don't use the word accurately. Selfish, in this case, only means that our decisions are made based on what results in a net positive feeling or us - the self.

For people with a generous spirit the net positive gain would be what is felt working at a soup kitchen rather than going to a baseball game. The better feeling for him outweighs the enjoyment of the game.
Certainly his fellow man benefits, but the bottom line is that he does also.

I think people are scared of this point when they hear the word "selfish" thrown in because we don't use the word accurately. Selfish, in this case, only means that our decisions are made based on what results in a net positive feeling or us - the self.

For people with a generous spirit the net positive gain would be what is felt working at a soup kitchen rather than going to a baseball game. The better feeling for him outweighs the enjoyment of the game.
Certainly his fellow man benefits, but the bottom line is that he does also.

True... if we're talking about peeling potatoes in a soup kitchen vs attending a baseball game.

Not true if we're talking about helping a homeless person get medical treatment, a job and a place to live. I don't think Mother Teresa peeled too many potatoes.

Why do I have to prove hat I was attacked? That is a personal thing for me.
(But is is true)

I have a perment to carry a weapon, they ran away. It's that simple.

As for you and your proof, I am still waiting to hear your source for the Fox News picture.

Until you can get me a source, I will regard it as a doctored photo, AND SLANDER.






You can't prove this. Where's your source?

True... if we're talking about peeling potatoes in a soup kitchen vs attending a baseball game.

Not true if we're talking about helping a homeless person get medical treatment, a job and a place to live. I don't think Mother Teresa peeled too many potatoes.
You completely missed the point. Mother Teresa helped the homeless because (and listen very closely here) it FUNDAMENTALLY made HER feel better to offer her assistance. Ask yourself this: were her motives selfish? In answer to that question - absolutely - her actions made HER FEEL GOOD, and in that vein, the real question becomes, why do people do things? Because they LIKE or NEED to do them, that's why. She was fundamentally no different than a successful stockbroker; she did what she liked to do, and her payment (in lieu of money in this particular situation) was the emotional gratitude of the people she helped. It's human nature, but because she's been forever nailed to the proverbial cross for her "sacrifices", she's been touted as "truly selfless". Bullshit. She was no more selfless than you or I are; she did what made her feel good.

You (Sedan) are a true idiot.
You, of all people, shouldn't be throwing that insult around, Sisko. Sedan may be a lot of things, but rest assured - he's NOT an idiot. Politically wrong minded? Definitely. An idiot??? Not on your life.

A more civilized society yes, but I challenge your claim that a more highly evolved people would help a less apt person survive. I think that more likely, a more evolved people would kill off the less capable people in their society so that they would promote the reproduction of the better specimens.
BINGO!!!!

Give this man a prize!

Not to mention - the rest of his post was excellent, too.

BINGO!!!!

Give this man a prize!

THE ADOLPH HITLER PRIZE FOR A PURE RACE!!!

Call it whatever you want - it's completely true.

You completely missed the point. Mother Teresa helped the homeless because (and listen very closely here) it FUNDAMENTALLY made HER feel better to offer her assistance. Ask yourself this: were her motives selfish? In answer to that question - absolutely - her actions made HER FEEL GOOD, and in that vein, the real question becomes, why do people do things? Because they LIKE or NEED to do them, that's why. She was fundamentally no different than a successful stockbroker; she did what she liked to do, and her payment (in lieu of money in this particular situation) was the emotional gratitude of the people she helped. It's human nature, but because she's been forever nailed to the proverbial cross for her "sacrifices", she's been touted as "truly selfless". Bullshit. She was no more selfless than you or I are; she did what made her feel good.

And you can prove that, right?

I'm sure spending her life in extreme poverty and filthy conditions was pure joy.

Get a grip, P... you're talking in circles now.

And you can prove that, right?

I'm sure spending her life in extreme poverty and filthy conditions was pure joy.

Get a grip, P... you're talking in circles now.
Different strokes for different folks......

She certainly wasn't common - I'll give you that.

BTW, how am I talking in circles when I’ve maintained the same premise throughout this entire conversation?

Different strokes for different folks......

She certainly wasn't common - I'll give you that.

BTW, how am I talking in circles when I’ve maintained the same premise throughout this entire conversation?

Some people are GIVERS and some people are TAKERS.

And there are extremes in both categories.

JMHO, mind ya.

:)
SMW

Not true if we're talking about helping a homeless person get medical treatment, a job and a place to live. Yes it is true. You do those things to please the self. People who please their "self" by doing those things are good people.
"Selfish" is a completely neutral term.

Nobody works at soup kitchens because it makes them feel bad inside.

Yes it is true. You do those things to please the self. People who please their "self" by doing those things are good people.
"Selfish" is a completely neutral term.

Nobody works at soup kitchens because it makes them feel bad inside.

You say "YES, IT IS TRUE" like it's a fact.

It's not a fact. It's your OPINION of what's true.

Not everyone shares your opinion. Just like not everybody shares mine. I'm sure you've heard the old saying... opinions are like a**holes, everybody's got one.

You have no idea how people 'feel inside'. It would do justice to your debating skills if you would stick to what YOU feel.

JMHO, mind ya. I'm the first to admit I know very little about what makes other people tick.

:)
SMW

....a more evolved people would kill off the less capable people in their society so that they would promote the reproduction of the better specimens.The more highly evolved a society is, the more they have prepared themselves for diffuculties. Whether it's years of famine or draught or the need to take care of non-productive members, they will have better prepared themselves for it.
"Pull it out of the ground and eat it" societies make no such allotments and would be much less likely to care for the less productive.

Besides, can you think of a single to back up your notion.

You say "YES, IT IS TRUE" like it's a fact.
It's not a fact. It's your OPINION of what's true.
It's neither a fact nor an opinion. It's true by definition.
Don't get hung up on what you think the word selfish means.

Hey buddy. If someone can function at a kindergarten level, we don't spend money to "keep them alive".
What the hell does that mean?

Sorry, I meant someone who required expensive care to keep alive; those who are disabled or retarded often have other medical problems that can be fairly expensive.

YEAH BUT...BUT.... oh, okay.

You are a true idiot.

I have been mugged and attacked on a couple of occasions. My attackers ran away. I am still alive

Oh lighten up - he was just making a joke.

btw I've been attacked many times too, and stabbed before. I do know what it's like.

It's neither a fact nor an opinion. It's true by definition.
Don't get hung up on what you think the word selfish means.

OK, yeah, yeah... you're right, sweetie. Who am I to argue with such logic?

:bombout:
SMW

THE ADOLPH HITLER PRIZE FOR A PURE RACE!!!

ouch! :lolhit:


Hey, I'm not stating my opinions on what we should do; I'm stating opinions on how I view evolution and an 'evolved society'. I view evolution as the reproduction of the best specimens to create a better specimen; and that could be any race at all.

All that I'm saying is that a disadvantaged person is disadvantaged and that evolution does not work towards reproducing those people.

The more highly evolved a society is, the more they have prepared themselves for diffuculties. Whether it's years of famine or draught or the need to take care of non-productive members, they will have better prepared themselves for it.

True, but to breed those non-productive members is anti-evolutionary.

"Pull it out of the ground and eat it" societies make no such allotments and would be much less likely to care for the less productive.

Besides, can you think of a single to back up your notion.

"Pull it out of the ground and eat it" societies are still years behind on the evolutionary scale, yet the way that they treat less productive members of society makes evolution work faster than in societies where we take care of our non-productive members. Of course, if you measure how civilized a society is, that is a completely different picture. Evolution and civilization are often intertwined, yet in the breeding aspects they differ completely.