Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question

[shakermaker3]

John Spartan , your comments are refreshing and i really have enjoyed reading your posts and agree with most of your views... I am wondering though, how can someone with your views vote for bush? (may not be the case buy you said your a registered rep. and this is off topic i am just curious pm if you want)

[guids]

John, I really hope you stop with teh inflated sense of self-satisfaction, using moores tactics of not arguing, and just saying that something is stupid makes you look like an idiot. There are tons of good points people are making that you gloss over. Health care is not a right, you cant prove that it is, so stop saying it is, just because you believe it so, just means that you are selfish. As much as everyone likes to say conservatives etc are the most selfish bunch on earth, imo, whats more selfish, telling people what they have to do with their money, or just letting other people be to make their own choices?

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't want a "minimum standard of living." You do. Why should you get your way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a super-majority(80-85% according to polls) of Americans support providing a minimum standard care of people, which is why you don't even see the most conservative Republicans advocating a dismantling of our government.

Poll from Pollingreport.com:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 9-13, 2003. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?" Options rotated

79% say providing, 17% say holding down taxes, and 4% are unsure. That poll is not an outlier either. If you look on Google you will see that poll after poll shows that Americans want universal health care. In fact, in some polls that I have seen, slight majorities of Americans, like 55-45%, even favor a single payer health care system. These ideas are not radical, they are mainstream.

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And taxes are not theft because you choose to live here and be a US citizen(or a citizen of basically almost any developed country you reside in), and so you have to pay taxes. If you don't like it, then you can leave. This is different from a robber holding a gun to your head because the robber doesn't give you the choice to walk away from him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant renounce your citizenship for tax reasons. Also your logic is horrible. It would be like me saying if you dont like the status quo then just move to a country where you like the status quo. For example YOU could move to all these great places that have universial health care if you dont like how the system currently is in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I'm not going to cry about your plight.

I'll simply quote from the best source I have seen that refutes the taxation is theft argument:

"Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.

Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident. "

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

[The4Aces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want a "minimum standard of living." You do. Why should you get your way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a super-majority(80-85% according to polls) of Americans support providing a minimum standard care of people, which is why you don't even see the most conservative Republicans advocating a dismantling of our government.

Poll from Pollingreport.com:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 9-13, 2003. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?" Options rotated

79% say providing, 17% say holding down taxes, and 4% are unsure. That poll is not an outlier either. If you look on Google you will see that poll after poll shows that Americans want universal health care. In fact, in some polls that I have seen, slight majorities of Americans, like 55-45%, even favor a single payer health care system. These ideas are not radical, they are mainstream.

[/ QUOTE ]

what would you say about an opt in system. For example if you can opt in to healthcare program by giving up 10% more of your wages. However you can opt out and taxes will not be increased for you individually? Or do you want to FORCE people to pay for others?

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Emperor, I would rather have people have to wait a few months for elective non-medically necessary surgery than have people dying of cancer or other diseases because they don't have the money for treatment and don't have insurance. The greed displayed in this thread is astounding.


[/ QUOTE ]

The US has the highest cancer survival rates, etc. as shown earlier. No one just dies because they can't get treatment for a serious condition here. And yes I am sure you can quote me some story just like others have quoted atypical Canadian wait times.

The US has the highest survival rate but as a result of private care it is true that poor will be on the lower end of survival rates and the rich will be at the top. It is selfish of me, but I want the highest chance of survival possible if I can afford it, not to settle for a lower chance in a free healthcare system.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...nce-deaths.htm

18,000 die each year from lack of health insurance. I posted it before and the only response I got was a lame one from Emperoer who said that they deserved their fate.

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarianism, in it's pure form, implemented in a country the size of the US, would be the biggest human catastrophe the earth has ever known.

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over time it definitely would be. If given enough time, casualties would match that of Stalin and Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

The instant someone talks about AC being "implemented" is the instant I realize they misunderstand the position they are arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ]

i love your cheap semantics. ok, fine, i'll use your lingo. removing the fascist power structure is analagous to implementing AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, you just blindly assert (no proof, no argument, nothing) that AC would match the horror and destruction of two of the worst dictatorships in human history and I'm the one playing cheap?

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no question that it would if given enough time, imo. and there is no way for me or you to prove our point on this topic because the system you advocate has never been tried in today's world.

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
John Spartan , your comments are refreshing and i really have enjoyed reading your posts and agree with most of your views... I am wondering though, how can someone with your views vote for bush? (may not be the case buy you said your a registered rep. and this is off topic i am just curious pm if you want)

[/ QUOTE ]

i voted for bush in 2000 because i truly believed he was a centrist like his father was. i liked his medicare drug plan better than gore's. i liked the no child left behind idea.of course he ruined both ideas when he introduced them to congress and then there's the war with iraq and everything else bad that he's done. i voted for kerry in 2004.

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
John, I really hope you stop with teh inflated sense of self-satisfaction, using moores tactics of not arguing, and just saying that something is stupid makes you look like an idiot. There are tons of good points people are making that you gloss over. Health care is not a right, you cant prove that it is, so stop saying it is, just because you believe it so, just means that you are selfish. As much as everyone likes to say conservatives etc are the most selfish bunch on earth, imo, whats more selfish, telling people what they have to do with their money, or just letting other people be to make their own choices?

[/ QUOTE ]

What right am I glossing over, guids? I have responded to every post that I have seen directed at me. If I miss one then please point it out. Contrast this with the people like Emperor lying about facts, and when confronted with the true data, they ignore it and go off on tangents and trolling.

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't want a "minimum standard of living." You do. Why should you get your way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a super-majority(80-85% according to polls) of Americans support providing a minimum standard care of people, which is why you don't even see the most conservative Republicans advocating a dismantling of our government.

Poll from Pollingreport.com:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 9-13, 2003. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?" Options rotated

79% say providing, 17% say holding down taxes, and 4% are unsure. That poll is not an outlier either. If you look on Google you will see that poll after poll shows that Americans want universal health care. In fact, in some polls that I have seen, slight majorities of Americans, like 55-45%, even favor a single payer health care system. These ideas are not radical, they are mainstream.

[/ QUOTE ]

what would you say about an opt in system. For example if you can opt in to healthcare program by giving up 10% more of your wages. However you can opt out and taxes will not be increased for you individually? Or do you want to FORCE people to pay for others?

[/ QUOTE ]'

the only way to get the benefits that we in similar systems is to force people into it by having either employers or employees contribute a portion of their paycheck into the system. most people would end up paying less than they pay for their private health care, and would never have to worry about losing their health insurance like they can when they get fired. there would be no health care bankruptcies anymore.