Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's one of the biggest parts of the coming U.S. election. Personally, I'm against it, mostly because the U.S. budget can't handle it. But I know people who believe there are national health plans out there that can operate under the same budget our present health care plan operates under. What does everyone think?

I think that people under the poverty line routinely can't survive because they lack health care of any sort. And the current economic/political system can do little else. In a country as developed as ours, I feel like no one should have to be deprived of basic needs.

I would try to solve the problem in a much different way. But under the current system I cautiously endorse national health care only because my way of solving it frankly won't happen in today's political environment with the parties thinking as they do, so I see no better way to provide everyone with at least modest care.

It works pretty well here, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't work in the U.S.

*Waits for Bardock's response*

Oh, but in case you were wondering, generally, I agree with this:

KSZq1Wkanxg

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It works pretty well here, I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't work in the U.S.

The UK isn't in 8 trillion dollars of debt with failing currency.

Most Western countries are in debt in proportion to their wealth anyway- it actually doesn't matter that much. Frankly, you cannot possibly advance the argument that in some way the US cannot afford it when it is the world's most affluent country.

It just needs an attitude shift, and thankfully it is at last happening because the lack of such a health care system is surprisingly backwards of the US, and something that other developed nations are rather amazed and shocked at.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Most Western countries are in debt in proportion to their wealth anyway- it actually doesn't matter that much. Frankly, you cannot possibly advance the argument that in some way the US cannot afford it when it is the world's most affluent country.

It just needs an attirude shift, and thnakfully it is at last happening because the lack of such a health care system is surprisingly backwards of the US, and something that other developed nations are rather amazed and shocked at.

What about the failing currency?

Currencies go down, currencies go up. Long-term it doesn't matter- again, you are simply straining credulity if you try and make out the US cannot afford it.

It sure will if we go into a depression.

Again, that doesn't matter. After the depression comes the boom. All countries have their cycles, yet the other western countries have run universal health care programmes during such cycles.

Stop fooling yourself. The problem is absolutely NOT that the US cannot do it. It is simply that the will has not before existed to do it. But finally the hideous immorality of a system that is not universal is becoming more and more clear to all; the failings of the system as is have been swept under the tug for ggenerations but it won't keep on like that any more.

This is true.

America's problem is not that we can't afford it, rather we just don't want to. Well, didn't, I guess.

It's not about whether they can afford it, but whether they should. Obviously they can afford it, but there are disadvantages too. I think it is clear to most people that the system in the US needs to be reformed, it is probably the worst in the Western World. But that you need National Health Care, does not follow from that, in fact I believe National Healthcare to be highly immoral, just like Ush seems to believe the opposite. A free market system, possiby with certain safety nets, would, in my opinion, be preferable. I think people need to take responsibility for their own lives and it is not acceptable that the upper middle and upper classes pay for the Health Care of the lower classes.

That being said, I would prefer a National Health Care syste readily over the system the United States have now, even though I find the idea as such pretty bad.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
What about the failing currency?

irrelevant given that it's the US that is the major manufacturer of the drugs which are the biggest cost of a nationalised health care system...because the drugs will alter price relative to the currency anyway even through massive inflation

the biggest problem with any initially nationalised system is that it tends not to be subject to market forces of capitalism and thus wastes massive resources (something a commercial business wouldn't do as it would go bust) because effectively a government can tax to afford whatever its paying out...it takes time to subject these systems to market forces and the NHS in the UK still wastes huge resources despite being established in 1942

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not about whether they can afford it, but whether they should. Obviously they can afford it, but there are disadvantages too. I think it is clear to most people that the system in the US needs to be reformed, it is probably the worst in the Western World. But that you need National Health Care, does not follow from that, in fact I believe National Healthcare to be highly immoral, just like Ush seems to believe the opposite. A free market system, possiby with certain safety nets, would, in my opinion, be preferable. I think people need to take responsibility for their own lives and it is not acceptable that the upper middle and upper classes pay for the Health Care of the lower classes.

That being said, I would prefer a National Health Care syste readily over the system the United States have now, even though I find the idea as such pretty bad.

Define "certain safety nets".

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind universal healthcare, as long as I don't have to pay for it when I am already paying for my own through my employer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Define "certain safety nets".

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind universal healthcare, as long as I don't have to pay for it when I am already paying for my own through my employer.

One could have a sort of welfare/healthcare plan for people that fall below the minimum. What you are for is not universal health care though, I wouldn't mind such a system either though I see no reason why the government has to be involved, a free market could offer such a service just as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I. I think people need to take responsibility for their own lives and it is not acceptable that the upper middle and upper classes pay for the Health Care of the lower classes.



There are several documented examples of how people with health insurance are ****ed over and over.

Insurance companies are not under any jurisdiction that will actaully force them to do right by the people under said policy.

Even Medicare is VERY restricting.

Originally posted by chithappens
There are several documented examples of how people with health insurance are ****ed over and over.

Insurance companies are not under any jurisdiction that will actaully force them to do right by the people under said policy.

Even Medicare is VERY restricting.

Yes, we all know that the American system is ****ed beyond believe.

But generally insurance companies do have the obligation to stick to contracts they make.

Obligation, yes.

But they are not being punished for the bullshit they do pull. All these damn kickbacks.

As a result of insurance companies not doing as they should, hospitals will send people home before they need to leave, resulting in that person getting half-ass medical treatment. This has happened to three of my grandparents in the past two years.

The current system is just dumb.

Originally posted by chithappens
Obligation, yes.

But they are not being punished for the bullshit they do pull. All these damn kickbacks.

As a result of insurance companies not doing as they should, hospitals will send people home before they need to leave, resulting in that person getting half-ass medical treatment. This has happened to three of my grandparents in the past two years.

The current system is just dumb. Which doesn't make the a UHC any better.

Originally posted by Bardock42
One could have a sort of welfare/healthcare plan for people that fall below the minimum. What you are for is not universal health care though, I wouldn't mind such a system either though I see no reason why the government has to be involved, a free market could offer such a service just as well.

Universal health care is health care for everyone. Under the system I want, there would be universal health care.

Subsidy assistance for those who can't afford and an opt out option for those who want to pay for healthcare through their employers and supplemental healthcare for commerical plans that have "holes".

Then there could always be the option of a commercial healthcare equivalent. In this option, the citizen pays a commercial entity the same thing they would normally pay the Fed for the Universal Healthcare. The commercial entity could offer much better benefits at the same rate via PPNs(Preferred provider networks...in other words, an HMO option).

My proposal is already very similar to what we have in place already. It wouldn't be hard to make the transition. The difference between my program and what is in place with Medicare right now is I would have the end "insured" be directly paying the commercial entity for their coverage. Currently, it doesn't work that way. The Medicare recipient pays the Fed their Medicare fee regardless of who the insurer is. This is stupid because the government only pays the insurer a rate based on the number of "customers". This is wrong. Despite this fact, the Medicare replacement plans are still able to offer better plans than the federal government.

Of course, the subsidy for the poor would be necessary. One flaw I already see in my plan is the money available for subsidy. That would have to be remedied through a tax. I don't know where this tax would come from but it would have to occur. It could be in the form of a higher tax for the Healthcare itself. This of course, would leave the commercial entities with even more money. The government program would pale in comparison to the commercial plans. In fact, there may not even be a need for the government side of the plan.

This, of course, brings us full circle to libertarian ideals. The commercial and religious entities would be the ones to provide the "subsidy". Kind of funny how I ended up with a libertarian ideal at the end of this post.

I don't know...I guess my plan would work if the government taxes a portion of the premiums paid to the commercial insurance providers. The providers could still provide a much better plan for less money than the Fed does.(Because they do it now with Medicare.) Besides, more competition would create better Healthcare for all.

Originally posted by chithappens
Obligation, yes.

But they are not being punished for the bullshit they do pull. All these damn kickbacks.

As a result of insurance companies not doing as they should, hospitals will send people home before they need to leave, resulting in that person getting half-ass medical treatment. This has happened to three of my grandparents in the past two years.

The current system is just dumb.

Or the fact that it's not unheard of for insurance companies to drop people's policies once they actually use the insurance for anything other than routine doctor visits.

Or constantly cut back what they will cover (something my family has been having a hard time with, as my brother is diabetic and our insurance keeps cutting back what stuff they'll cover).

And if you don't have insurance and can't get it through work, and have anything they deem a 'pre-existing condition' (which can be anything from seeing a doctor once for depression, to an injury, to being pregnant, to heart problems)? Good luck, they won't touch you with a ten foot pole.

Our current system is completely ****ed up, and the cost of it isn't even half of it.

Originally posted by Lana
Or the fact that it's not unheard of for insurance companies to drop people's policies once they actually use the insurance for anything other than routine doctor visits.

Or constantly cut back what they will cover (something my family has been having a hard time with, as my brother is diabetic and our insurance keeps cutting back what stuff they'll cover).

And if you don't have insurance and can't get it through work, and have anything they deem a 'pre-existing condition' (which can be anything from seeing a doctor once for depression, to an injury, to being pregnant, to heart problems)? Good luck, they won't touch you with a ten foot pole.

Our current system is completely ****ed up, and the cost of it isn't even half of it.

Let me offer an example to compliment this: my grandfather had a stroke and can no longer move his left side or speak. Now, suddenly, all of this random shit is not covered, and it needs to come out of the pocket of the family.

So one day, the hospital calls my mother and tells them to come get my grandfather in the next two hours because he has to leave when previously they had informed us we would have at least a 24 warning before he was discharged. I'm no genius, but it was obvious before we even had a chance to talk policy again that it was because of something concerning insurance. I hate it.

You can't possibly understand the bullshit until it happens to you.

I'll co-sign that Ron Paul video Kramer posted.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Most Western countries are in debt in proportion to their wealth anyway- it actually doesn't matter that much. Frankly, you cannot possibly advance the argument that in some way the US cannot afford it when it is the world's most affluent country.

It just needs an attitude shift, and thankfully it is at last happening because the lack of such a health care system is surprisingly backwards of the US, and something that other developed nations are rather amazed and shocked at.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Currencies go down, currencies go up. Long-term it doesn't matter- again, you are simply straining credulity if you try and make out the US cannot afford it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, that doesn't matter. After the depression comes the boom. All countries have their cycles, yet the other western countries have run universal health care programmes during such cycles.

Stop fooling yourself. The problem is absolutely NOT that the US cannot do it. It is simply that the will has not before existed to do it. But finally the hideous immorality of a system that is not universal is becoming more and more clear to all; the failings of the system as is have been swept under the tug for ggenerations but it won't keep on like that any more.

I could just as easily argue that health care doesn't matter. And we are in an unusually serious financial problem. Sure, debt isn't a big issue usually. Usually, our economy is stabilized by the fact that other countries are in more debt to us then we are to them. Usually, our debt is because of some huge technological advancements we've focused our money on. Usually, most of our major budget areas aren't screaming for development.

Now, we have a net debt of 1 trillion. All of our major budget items (the educational system, health care system, national defense, etc) need more money just to compete with the rest of the world.

This isn't something that will go up automatically.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I could just as easily argue that health care doesn't matter. '

oh please do. i like when people make themselves look silly

Originally posted by Quark_666
And we are in an unusually serious financial problem. Sure, debt isn't a big issue usually. Usually, our economy is stabilized by the fact that other countries are in more debt to us then we are to them. Usually, our debt is because of some huge technological advancements we've focused our money on. Usually, most of our major budget areas aren't screaming for development.

Now, we have a net debt of 1 trillion. All of our major budget items (the educational system, health care system, national defense, etc) need more money just to compete with the rest of the world.

This isn't something that will go up automatically.

all irrelevant. nowhere have you presented a convincing argument that we cannot afford universal healthcare (or 'socialized' healthcare as idiots like to call it).

Originally posted by Quark_666
Usually, our debt is because of some huge technological advancements we've focused our money on.

False.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Usually, most of our major budget areas aren't screaming for development.

Screaming for reform, yes.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Now, we have a net debt of 1 trillion.

False.

Originally posted by Quark_666
All of our major budget items (the educational system, health care system, national defense, etc) need more money just to compete with the rest of the world.

Education...yes. Managing it better could reduce some of the budget problems associated with this "budget item".

Health Care...yes. Managing it better could reduce some of the budget problems associated with this "budget item".

National Defense...no...not by a long shot. Maybe managed better.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'll co-sign that Ron Paul video Kramer posted.

That's because you're a genius. 131

If National Health Care Plan doesn't come to play in the US, I am moving to Canada, marry a Canadian and have free health care. **** insurance companies, most of the time they reject you, its bullshit.

Originally posted by Leo.M
If National Health Care Plan doesn't come to play in the US, I am moving to Canada, marry a Canadian and have free health care. **** insurance companies, most of the time they reject you, its bullshit.

It's not free.

I found out my insurance doesn't cover emergency room visits. Asses.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I found out my insurance doesn't cover emergency room visits. Asses.

Yea, you have to pay for that LOL. $500 I believe just for ambulance showing up. Not sure if that in a nation-wide fee or just in my state.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I found out my insurance doesn't cover emergency room visits. Asses.

Well then what the hell good is it?

As for the thread topic, the money we already spend on public health care could easily pay for universal healthcare. But what we need to remember is that "freeing" a market that is already cornered by the same drug and insurance industries will be a ueseless effort.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well then what the hell good is it?

As for the thread topic, the money we already spend on public health care could easily pay for universal healthcare. But what we need to remember is that "freeing" a market that is already cornered by the same drug and insurance industries will be a ueseless effort. That is inaccurate. Freeing the market would bring in vast competition and could actually lower the proces. Your other point is true though, America already spends more than any other country in the world on Health Care, but it isn't done effectively.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is inaccurate. Freeing the market would bring in vast competition and could actually lower the proces. Your other point is true though, America already spends more than any other country in the world on Health Care, but it isn't done effectively.


Oh yeah, cause a guy working out of his basement is going to be able to compete with any number of companies who report a 30 billion dollar profit every year.

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh yeah, cause a guy working out of his basement is going to be able to compete with any number of companies who report a 30 billion dollar profit every year.

If they are forced not to use unfree methods, maybe. I understand you can't see it, but the doctors as well as the drug companies would have to compete on a free market giving the consumer a huge advantage again, as they can now shop and get their business where they want.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If they are forced not to use unfree methods, maybe. I understand you can't see it, but the doctors as well as the drug companies would have to compete on a free market giving the consumer a huge advantage again, as they can now shop and get their business where they want.

And what I know you can't see is that the doctors in this country are catered to and wined and dined by drug company reps. Looking at the wall in a doctor's waiting room is like looking at the back of a nascar driver's jumpsuit. They're covered with pamphlets and posters and clocks, that are all in turn covered with the names of certain drugs. When you go to sign in for your appointment, the pens are covered with drug adds. So, suddenly freeing these companies to do as they please isn't going to change anything.

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

Originally posted by Devil King
And what I know you can't see is that the doctors in this country are catered to and wined and dined by drug company reps. Looking at the wall in a doctor's waiting room is like looking at the back of a nascar driver's jumpsuit. They're covered with pamphlets and posters and clocks, that are all in turn covered with the names of certain drugs. When you go to sign in for your appointment, the pens are covered with drug adds. So, suddenly freeing these companies to do as they please isn't going to change anything.

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

What do you mean with suddenly freeing? You gave them powers beyond anything a free market would grant them. They wouldn't get more free, the consumers would.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean with suddenly freeing? You gave them powers beyond anything a free market would grant them. They wouldn't get more free, the consumers would.

I mean suddenly freeing them would result in them doing exactly what they;re already doing, which is using their money to influence the sale of their product, whether the product works or not.

It's one of the things I don't understand about people thinking that RP is talking about something new. Our government is already a subsidiary of business in this country (Both parties) and loosening the reigns and cutting their taxes isn't going to make anything better.

Originally posted by Devil King
I mean suddenly freeing them would result in them doing exactly what they;re already doing, which is using their money to influence the sale of their product, whether the product works or not.

It's one of the things I don't understand about people thinking that RP is talking about something new. Our government is already a subsidiary of business in this country (Both parties) and loosening the reigns and cutting their taxes isn't going to make anything better.

That's the problem I see. People believe for some reason that the US is a free market, capitalist society already, which is of course nonsense. The size of the government alone speaks against that. The problem the US has is not the free market running rampant, but the large government being immensely vulnerable to lobbyists, which ****s the free market so hard up the ass and only plays in the hands of big corporations and large interest groups. It's sad how capitalism is the ideologie that gets all the shit for the US being sucky, while it is really just the opposite that's doing it.

Originally posted by Schecter
nowhere have you presented a convincing argument that we cannot afford universal healthcare (or 'socialized' healthcare as idiots like to call it).

True enough...but I was responding to the claim that the national debt doesn't matter. Would anybody care to point out why our failing dollar doesn't matter?

they (ush) simply stated that our ever growing and shrinking national debt is irrelevant to whether or not we could afford universal healthcare. i suspect he is right.

Originally posted by Schecter
they (ush) simply stated that our ever growing and shrinking national debt is irrelevant to whether or not we could afford universal healthcare. i suspect he is right.

I seem to recall him mentioning that depression isn't something to worry about because it is accompanied by a boom right afterward.

Let me put it this way: what does a depression do to national health care?

Originally posted by Schecter
they (ush) simply stated that our ever growing and shrinking national debt is irrelevant to whether or not we could afford universal healthcare. i suspect he is right. He probably is, seeing how much you pay already.

How much actually is health insurance (per annum)?

Originally posted by Quark_666
I seem to recall him mentioning that depression isn't something to worry about because it is accompanied by a boom right afterward.

Let me put it this way: what does a depression do to national health care?

first off, we are facing a possible recession, NOT a depression. get the images of millions of raggedly dressed unemployed middle class waiting on line at the soup kitchen out of your head. even if it did come to that then national healthcare would be just one of many many MANY worries.

your thinking is based upon the assumption that taxes would be diverted from education and other government programs and never considers that we would pay extra in taxes for said coverage.

not to shift topics, but if there is one thing the iraq war has proven is that the u.s. can afford to hemorage hundreds of billions of dollars a year and stay afloat. this is out of existing revenue.

we get it "zomg we're broke". well we're not. im not. are you?

Originally posted by Schecter
"zomg we're broke". im not.

Liar.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Liar.

well i dont manage my money very well. point is im always in the process of making more money and of course helping to pay for patriot missiles and poorly armored humvees, failing inner city school systems, etc

Originally posted by Schecter
well i dont manage my money very well. point is im always in the process of making more money and of course helping to pay for patriot missiles and poorly armored humvees, failing inner city school systems, etc

That sounds sarcastic. Are you not a patriot?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That sounds sarcastic. Are you not a patriot?

who are you to question my patriotism you poop eating panzer driving goose stepping freak?

Originally posted by Schecter
who are you to question my patriotism you poop eating panzer driving goose stepping freak? COMMUNIST!!

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
How much actually is health insurance (per annum)?

Well, ultimately it depends on a lot of factors, but the info I'm finding (from here) says that an average premium for family health insurance is currently about $12,000 per year. And even though most people with insurance get it through their employer and thus only pay about a quarter to a third of that on average, the number of people who do get coverage through work is decreasing and the amount paid out of pocket is increasing.

Originally posted by Lana
Well, ultimately it depends on a lot of factors, but the info I'm finding (from here) says that an average premium for family health insurance is currently about $12,000 per year. And even though most people with insurance get it through their employer and thus only pay about a quarter to a third of that on average, the number of people who do get coverage through work is decreasing and the amount paid out of pocket is increasing. Obviously coverage by the employer is ultimately paid by the employee as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the problem I see. People believe for some reason that the US is a free market, capitalist society already, which is of course nonsense. The size of the government alone speaks against that. The problem the US has is not the free market running rampant, but the large government being immensely vulnerable to lobbyists, which ****s the free market so hard up the ass and only plays in the hands of big corporations and large interest groups. It's sad how capitalism is the ideologie that gets all the shit for the US being sucky, while it is really just the opposite that's doing it.

Yes, it is a problem. But you repeat, ad naus, that the free market is going to solve all our problems. If you got what you wanted and the government was reduced and the market, controlled by the very companies we're talking about, was freed to manage itself, I don't understand how you think it think that will somehow result in citizens suddenly not being taken advantage of or becoming better, more informed consumers; not to mention the idea that a small government can't be influenced by lobbyists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously coverage by the employer is ultimately paid by the employee as well.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I did mention that.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes, it is a problem. But you repeat, ad naus, that the free market is going to solve all our problems. If you got what you wanted and the government was reduced and the market, controlled by the very companies we're talking about, was freed to manage itself, I don't understand how you think it think that will somehow result in citizens suddenly not being taken advantage of or becoming better, more informed consumers; not to mention the idea that a small government can't be influenced by lobbyists. A small government can be influenced by lobbyists, it just can't decide important matters.

Just as you do not see how the free market would solve your problems, I can not see how more government intervention will. The consumers don't need to become more informed, though I suppose they might, they just hopefully would do what they do already in other parts, look for the cheapest alternative. You seem to have the idea that it is your responsibility to take care of the blind, ill informed masses, but that's just the kind of idea that brought you into this mess you are in, people need to feel that they are solely responsible for themselves, cause ultimately they are and should be.

Originally posted by Lana
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I did mention that. Must have missed it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A small government can be influenced by lobbyists, it just can't decide important matters.

Just as you do not see how the free market would solve your problems, I can not see how more government intervention will. The consumers don't need to become more informed, though I suppose they might, they just hopefully would do what they do already in other parts, look for the cheapest alternative. You seem to have the idea that it is your responsibility to take care of the blind, ill informed masses, but that's just the kind of idea that brought you into this mess you are in, people need to feel that they are solely responsible for themselves, cause ultimately they are and should be.

Responsible for themselves? They are responsible for themselves. What the government does is help those at the very bottom and the very top. Those of us in the middle are left to fend for ourselves. Take the national minimum wage as an example; $5.85 an hour. If you take the average 40 hour work week, that's what, 230 bucks a week BEFORE taxes? Who the hell can live on that? So, they have to work more than 40 hours a week. Shall we go back to the days where there were no needless labour laws that aren't outlined in the constitution? The smaller government, hands off my money, approach seems to follow the idea of trickle down economics, and the past has proven all that trickle to be the big business pissing on the middle and lower classes. You don't really think Ron Paul is the only one that's used the idea of hands off government funneling it's way down to the average American citizen, do you?

And who the hell wants the cheapest alternative? You're saying America WANTS to dress in that piece of shit $60 Wal-Mart suit? You keep saying that if they didn't want it, they'd buy it elsewhere and that government involvment is what's keeping competition from puching the market. Well, it's not when it comes to the cheaper alternatives, it's that big business you think will benefit from competition sending their lobbyists to Washington.

Your whole spiel has been about the individual looking out for themselves; well who's going to look out for themselves when the companies you think will act so responsible haven't done so in the past when they were free to do as they pleased? Personal responsability, personal responsability, personal responsability! Well, how the hell are we supposed to expect these companies, that are motivated soley by profit, to just do the right thing? You're saying if they don't, we stop shopping there and go across the street and buy there, but they're going to do the same thing! They want our money too. How do we stop them from doing it? Don't regulate them, just let the public decide. But how to we retaliat when they screw us over too? Sue them? And what happens there? We institute regulations based on those rulings. And then to enforce those regulations we build up government bureaucracy, which is exactly what this country has done. Deciding to just set the clock back to zero is not what's in the best interest of a country of 300 million citizens. So, cut the wasteful bureaucracy, but don't loose sight of why it developed in the first place. This government is a business, and I'm amazed that someone like Ron Paul who can make so much sense on one hand, totally ignore why he's pissed on the other. Personal responsability is a great thing, but running the government like those businesses don't have to be, isn't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A small government can be influenced by lobbyists, it just can't decide important matters.

what use would a totally impotent government have?

Originally posted by Devil King
Responsible for themselves? They are responsible for themselves. What the government does is help those at the very bottom and the very top. Those of us in the middle are left to fend for ourselves. Take the national minimum wage as an example; $5.85 an hour. If you take the average 40 hour work week, that's what, 230 bucks a week BEFORE taxes? Who the hell can live on that? So, they have to work more than 40 hours a week. Shall we go back to the days where there were no needless labour laws that aren't outlined in the constitution? The smaller government, hands off my money, approach seems to follow the idea of trickle down economics, and the past has proven all that trickle to be the big business pissing on the middle and lower classes. You don't really think Ron Paul is the only one that's used the idea of hands off government funneling it's way down to the average American citizen, do you?

And who the hell wants the cheapest alternative? You're saying America WANTS to dress in that piece of shit $60 Wal-Mart suit? You keep saying that if they didn't want it, they'd buy it elsewhere and that government involvment is what's keeping competition from puching the market. Well, it's not when it comes to the cheaper alternatives, it's that big business you think will benefit from competition sending their lobbyists to Washington.

Your whole spiel has been about the individual looking out for themselves; well who's going to look out for themselves when the companies you think will act so responsible haven't done so in the past when they were free to do as they pleased? Personal responsability, personal responsability, personal responsability! Well, how the hell are we supposed to expect these companies, that are motivated soley by profit, to just do the right thing? You're saying if they don't, we stop shopping there and go across the street and buy there, but they're going to do the same thing! They want our money too. How do we stop them from doing it? Don't regulate them, just let the public decide. But how to we retaliat when they screw us over too? Sue them? And what happens there? We institute regulations based on those rulings. And then to enforce those regulations we build up government bureaucracy, which is exactly what this country has done. Deciding to just set the clock back to zero is not what's in the best interest of a country of 300 million citizens. So, cut the wasteful bureaucracy, but don't loose sight of why it developed in the first place. This government is a business, and I'm amazed that someone like Ron Paul who can make so much sense on one hand, totally ignore why he's pissed on the other. Personal responsability is a great thing, but running the government like those businesses don't have to be, isn't.

I am not sure why you think a free market means that there are no regulations in place, but apparently that seems to be your problem with it. Well, maybe it will help you to know that in most free marekt theories I am aware of and certainly in the one I am proposing, the companies can't run amok, there would be laws protecting the voluntary exchange, there would be laws against fraug, there'd be anti trust laws and there even be environmental laws. Free market does not equate to the companies can do what the **** they want. So, if that's your only real concern about that, I hope that helped you.

But the thing is that companies screw people much less over than they would like to belive, WalMart offering you a suit for 10 bucks is not them screwing you over in any way. There's no one that forces you to buy it and it might even be extreme shit quality (thoug, in my experience, WalmArt doesn't even have particularly shitty products).

I am confused now, well, for now I'd like to make those two points, if I totally disregarded something in your post (which is likely, cause it confused me), please tell me, I'll try to respond.

Originally posted by Devil King
what use would a totally impotent government have?

Well, it would have the specific uses assigned to them, without the vast bureucracy, that lobbyists can take advantage of. There would of course have to be safety measures. I don't see the advantage of a Socialiced system against a free one at all though. What system are you supporting anyways?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not sure why you think a free market means that there are no regulations in place, but apparently that seems to be your problem with it. Well, maybe it will help you to know that in most free marekt theories I am aware of and certainly in the one I am proposing, the companies can't run amok, there would be laws protecting the voluntary exchange, there would be laws against fraug, there'd be anti trust laws and there even be environmental laws. Free market does not equate to the companies can do what the **** they want. So, if that's your only real concern about that, I hope that helped you.

But the thing is that companies screw people much less over than they would like to belive, WalMart offering you a suit for 10 bucks is not them screwing you over in any way. There's no one that forces you to buy it and it might even be extreme shit quality (thoug, in my experience, WalmArt doesn't even have particularly shitty products).

I am confused now, well, for now I'd like to make those two points, if I totally disregarded something in your post (which is likely, cause it confused me), please tell me, I'll try to respond.

A free market doesn't equate to running amok, reduced government can; and that seems to be what Ron Paul wants.

Rather than telling me what I should get you to answer, why don't you let me know how I confused you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it would have the specific uses assigned to them, without the vast bureucracy, that lobbyists can take advantage of. There would of course have to be safety measures. I don't see the advantage of a Socialiced system against a free one at all though. What system are you supporting anyways?

The vast bureaucracy? You mean the 3 branches of government as laid out by the constitution? Because it's the congressmen and the senators and the president that are fed by lobbyists. (unnlss you want to get into the 4th branch of government, which is the military industrial complex.)

Originally posted by Devil King
3 branches of government

correction: 4




...you forgot the new dick cheney branch/

Originally posted by Devil King
The vast bureaucracy? You mean the 3 branches of government as laid out by the constitution? Because it's the congressmen and the senators and the president that are fed by lobbyists. (unnlss you want to get into the 4th branch of government, which is the military industrial complex.)

I don't believe he's referring to the branches of government but rather the departments in government.

Originally posted by Kram3r
I don't believe he's referring to the branches of government but rather the departments in government.

We see lobbyists leaving the offices of senators and governors and congressmen, not cubicles at the IRS.

Originally posted by Devil King
We see lobbyists leaving the offices of senators and governors and congressmen, not cubicles at the IRS.

Yeah, I miss read.