I don't disagree with everything you say Bob, but if you ever come to power, I promise you that I will be working towards overthrowing you, and ruining your programs.

Even the ones I like.

Just to clarify, I am not against free health-care in all cases. What I mean is, if government controls one more territory of our lives, I can assure you, it's not for the better. The way we have things, nowadays, free health-care is not cohesive with Capitalism. Profit is always put before people, and if there's no profit to be made, then there's no way in hell we'll get the "better end of the stick". We can see Big Business controls government, and there's really no argument to say health-care should be free, from either end, Government or Business.

NerblyBear wrote:

drew patrick wrote:
And, even if you clarify all that, the practice of government seems to end up quite a bit different (usually worse or at least much less efficient) than what had been imagined by the theory underlying it.

So what? Surely the perfect ideal has never been reached, but you would presumably grant that there are better and worse forms of government, and that certain blueprints are at least implemented with real-world effects as consequences.

By a "strong central government" I mean one organizing mechanism which has control of revenue, military, foreign treaty-making, law-making, law-executing, and law-determining. It's not too complex of a concept.

Most central governments in the world are unitary. It is my opinion that complex geographical states (complex either in physical-geographical terms or cultural-geographical terms) are better suited toward a federal-type organization rather than a unitary central government.

It is also my opinion that the quality of any system of governance is directly proportional to the independence of the judiciary. A captured constitutional court is usually a good sign that the central government isn't interested in fulfilling its purported role in society.

Johnny 13 wrote:I don't disagree with everything you say Bob, but if you ever come to power, I promise you that I will be working towards overthrowing you, and ruining your programs.

Even the ones I like.

Sorry, John, but I hate your freedoms. Dictators are always misunderstood in their time. So it goes.

Seriously, though- functional cooperative societies do require submission to the greater good ( and sometimes the uncooperative cannot be offered a choice in the matter ).

Skronk wrote:

R.F.F. wrote:The problem I have with this statement is that it's mostly wrong. Your friends are having to wait for non-emergency surgery. If they were really in bad shape it would be done a lot sooner. Government run healthcare has failed- except everywhere it's ever been done. I'm sorry your friend had to wait for his plantar wart's surgery, but if you feel that you are entitled to better healthcare than the family down the street because you have insurance- then you are a bad person.

I'm a capitalist. I'm a landlord, business owner, and I invest in the market. I believe in our system, but market run healthcare in America is a crime and no amount of relaxing of government control or increasing competition will change that. I'm glad you appear to have insurance and I honestly hope that you always do.

I appreciate your view, it's interesting. But just don't jump to conclusions. I, honestly, don't have any health insurance. If I were to be injured today, I'd be fucked with my bills. My point was if health-care is privatized, there's more of an incentive for the companies to raise the quality of health-care. If it's completely in government hands, no competition, it will stagnate. They, government, would completely mandate what we could or could not have done, elective procedures and so on.

Healthcare is private now and it's failing a large part of our population. The free market shouldn't control something as important as healthcare, because the free market generally puts profit over people. If I need medical care I usually don't have the luxury to shop around for the lowest price. Not all government programs are bad and I completely reject your idea that you need the free market to be innovative. NASA, the Military, and public education are all excellent examples of governments' innovation. All of these agencies may not always be up to snuff, but they are among the world leaders in quality and excellence.
Also, I'm glad that you think a new pair of boobs is more important than a person's health, but I don't think that elective surgery, or lack thereof, is a real reason against universal healthcare. Insurance companies generally don't pay for elective surgery now, so what difference would it make if the government wouldn't? The answer is none. Plastic surgeons would still exist and so would store bought titties. Unequivocally, if you are against equal access to healthcare for all you are a bad person.

R.F.F. wrote: NASA, the Military, and public education are all excellent examples of governments' innovation. All of these agencies may not always be up to snuff, but they are among the world leaders in quality and excellence.

So, the military is an innovation to you? A concept that when not engaged in defensive acts, goes and invades nations, and oppresses people. That's your example of an innovation? "Leaders of quality and excellence"?
You've got to be joking. See my earlier posts for the topic of Public Education.

R.F.F. wrote:Also, I'm glad that you think a new pair of boobs is more important than a person's health, but I don't think that elective surgery, or lack thereof, is a real reason against universal healthcare.

If you actually read my posts, you would see that elective surgery is not why I'm against universal health-care.

R.F.F. wrote:Unequivocally, if you are against equal access to healthcare for all you are a bad person.

I had said nothing about denying people equal access to health-care, at all. You're trying to put words into my mouth, words that I would never say.
Here's what it comes down to. Change, in order for it to play a positive role, must happen in small increments. You can't go from what we have now, to a completely free system, without our economy collapsing. It has to be done in steps. If you actually read my posts, you would see that I'm for major reform and overhaul of our health-care system, but I guess the shiny "innovations" like the military and public education have blinded you from reading your monitor.

R.F.F. wrote:

NASA, the Military, and public education are all excellent examples of governments' innovation. All of these agencies may not always be up to snuff, but they are among the world leaders in quality and excellence.


So, the military is an innovation to you? A concept that when not engaged in defensive acts, goes and invades nations, and oppresses people. That's your example of an innovation? "Leaders of quality and excellence"?
You've got to be joking. See my earlier posts for the topic of Public Education.

Yes. I don't agree with what the military does, but it is very innovative. Look at the advancement in weaponry and combat medicine in the last 25 years alone. It's staggering. I don't need to agree with what they do to see that they are an amazing organization. I can only assume that you are the one joking- they are generally very good at what they do. Do you even know what innovation means? The military is cutting edge.
American public education taught me to reed, right, and ad stuff up. Eye love it. Ewe should two.

I had said nothing about denying people equal access to health-care, at all. You're trying to put words into my mouth, words that I would never say.
Here's what it comes down to. Change, in order for it to play a positive role, must happen in small increments. You can't go from what we have now, to a completely free system, without our economy collapsing. It has to be done in steps. If you actually read my posts, you would see that I'm for major reform and overhaul of our health-care system, but I guess the shiny "innovations" like the military and public education have blinded you from reading your monitor

.

If you believe that people should have equal and free access to healthcare, then I don't think you're a bad person based only on that. I've quoted your post that I've commented on- what more do you want from me? Please show me where I misquoted you. I'm calling you out on your ideas that more competition is good for the healthcare industry, that the government can't be innovative, and that the government wouldn't let you have elective surgery. I've given you my opinions on these things and backed them up with some examples. I suppose I can find some links to things, but we all have google and I'm not making any claims that are bat-shit insane or need empirical data.

Change, in order for it to play a positive role, must happen in small increments

.
Mindless platitudes like this drive me up a wall. People write and say stuff like this all the time, and I'm supposed to accept it as universal truth? "Oh, yeah, he's right. Only good stuff ever happens in small step, therefore whatever is written next must be true." It's a bullshit premise and it adds nothing to the debate.

R.F.F. wrote:Yes. I don't agree with what the military does, but it is very innovative. Look at the advancement in weaponry and combat medicine in the last 25 years alone. It's staggering. I don't need to agree with what they do to see that they are an amazing organization. I can only assume that you are the one joking- they are generally very good at what they do. Do you even know what innovation means? The military is cutting edge.

I'm supposed to marvel at the advanced weaponry? They're tools to kill whole populations, to wipe life off the planet, to maim and slaughter, and I'm supposed to think they're "cool" and "innovative"?

R.F.F. wrote:American public education taught me to reed, right, and ad stuff up. Eye love it. Ewe should two.

Public education isn't necessary to learn how to read, and to write, and "too ad stuf up".

R.F.F. wrote:If you believe that people should have equal and free access to healthcare, then I don't think you're a bad person based only on that. I've quoted your post that I've commented on- what more do you want from me? Please show me where I misquoted you.

You haven't misquoted me. You were trying to put words in my mouth:

R.F.F. wrote:Unequivocally, if you are against equal access to healthcare for all you are a bad person.

I don't take it personally.

Skronk wrote:Change, in order for it to play a positive role, must happen in small increments

.

R.F.F. wrote:Mindless platitudes like this drive me up a wall. People write and say stuff like this all the time, and I'm supposed to accept it as universal truth? "Oh, yeah, he's right. Only good stuff ever happens in small step, therefore whatever is written next must be true." It's a bullshit premise and it adds nothing to the debate.

Whatever change you want to bring in, it has to be done with tact, and care. See what happens if free health-care or anything else drastic gets implemented in too short of a time, you'll have chaos.

I'm supposed to marvel at the advanced weaponry? They're tools to kill whole populations, to wipe life off the planet, to maim and slaughter, and I'm supposed to think they're "cool" and "innovative"?

So, no you do not know what the word innovative means. All you had to do was say so.

in-no-va-tion –noun 1. something new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum.
2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.

in·no·va·tive
–adjective tending to innovate or characterized by innovation.

Nowhere in there does it mean that I agree with what the military is doing. But gosh darn they are an innovative bunch.

[

quote]R.F.F. wrote:
Unequivocally, if you are against equal access to healthcare for all you are a bad person.

I don't take it personally.

You should. It's meant to be offensive to you. Was I not clear?

Whatever change you want to bring in, it has to be done with tact, and care. See what happens if free health-care or anything else drastic gets implemented in too short of a time, you'll have chaos.

Why? Just because you think so, doesn't make it so. You make a mindless statement and back it up with another mindless statement. What's going to happen? Will the sky fall? I for one do not pretend to know what would happen if we switch to universal healthcare. Europe is pretty chaotic. Now, Canada is a hot bed of chaos. I was in Windsor last year at a casino and I went all in with a suited 10/9 with a J/J/ 7 flop. I didn't hit the straight and I lost to a caller with pocket J/7. I bet big before the flop- who the hell stays in with a J/7 after a large early position pre-flop bet? That's chaos.