Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 100

Thread: Barrack Obama = Jimmy Carter 2.0

  1. #16
    Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    97
    Obama didn't catch Osama. Bush caught Osama, it jus thappened to come with someone else sitting in the chair.

    If I build a house but let you cut the ribbon before we move in, who really built it?

    As far as healthcare being a "right", we're only entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If I choose to eat steak and bacon all my life, why should it be my neighbors responsibilty to pay my healthcare costs? People make choices, they shouldn't be bailed out when they make bad ones. Personal responsibility is missing in USA.

    If they wanted to fix healthcare they should worry about increasing competition in the healthcare industry to drive down prices instead of mandating coverage so no one can afford it. Let companies compete across states and let the best company win. There are plenty of other things that could help fix healthcare, but this would be a great first step.

  2. #17
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,948
    why do people still believe in "free market fixes everything" as if it's some religious axiom? the businesses in question (whatever they may be) have far more to gain by colluding with each other against the common people and have long since realized that.

  3. #18
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by noobium View Post
    why do people still believe in "free market fixes everything" as if it's some religious axiom? the businesses in question (whatever they may be) have far more to gain by colluding with each other against the common people and have long since realized that.
    Yes, Free Market is just as much of a fantasy as actual working Communism is. For Free Market to work the consumer would need absolute awareness of everything at all times in order to make an informed decision, this is obviously outside the span of human ability and hence Free Market is inherently impossible to achieve. Without a large state to control it it'll ALWAYS end up with oligopolies and market collusion to fix prices high, keep quality low and to strangle competitors in the bud.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #19
    Forum Fanatic freemehul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    noyb
    Posts
    2,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    Yes, Free Market is just as much of a fantasy as actual working Communism is. For Free Market to work the consumer would need absolute awareness of everything at all times in order to make an informed decision, this is obviously outside the span of human ability and hence Free Market is inherently impossible to achieve. Without a large state to control it it'll ALWAYS end up with oligopolies and market collusion to fix prices high, keep quality low and to strangle competitors in the bud.
    welcome to the world of economic geography ;)
    Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.

  5. #20
    Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    97
    I'll grant that free market is not perfect, or near it, but it's a whole lot better than a bloated bureaucracy trying to run things. People are greedy...businesses will compete because of that greed. It's the government's job to promote that competition and eliminate potential monopolies/oligopoly's. People are also inherently lazy, which is why a government working who has no incentive (greed) to make a business run efficiently is not the best choice. Play to who humans as a species are.

    Theoretically, socialism is a great idea...but humans aren't perfect so the free market is better in actuality than socialism is simply because it plays to the true nature of who humans are.

  6. #21
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,948
    what other way is there to manage anything? a corporate bureaucracy is still a bureaucracy. shit doesn't just happen.

  7. #22
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan4GS View Post
    As far as healthcare being a "right", we're only entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
    1. That's your opinion.
    2. I think healthcare would fall under the "life" part. If you get sick and die because you couldn't afford to go to the hospital you've been stripped of your life.

  8. #23
    Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    1. That's your opinion.
    2. I think healthcare would fall under the "life" part. If you get sick and die because you couldn't afford to go to the hospital you've been stripped of your life.
    Just FYI (and I don't know where you're from), here in America you have the right to care at hospitals, regardless of if you can pay for it. Ultimately the tax payer would get the bill.

    And as for the "rights"...well maybe that's just an American thing. Universally is highly debatable and I doubt humanity would ever be able to come to a consensus.

  9. #24
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan4GS View Post
    Just FYI (and I don't know where you're from), here in America you have the right to care at hospitals, regardless of if you can pay for it. Ultimately the tax payer would get the bill.

    And as for the "rights"...well maybe that's just an American thing. Universally is highly debatable and I doubt humanity would ever be able to come to a consensus.
    Then why does people need health insurance? And do you really have the right to advanced medical care and not just emergency medical care?

    If the US really had universal right to all inclusive hospital care then why is there a need for Obama Care and why is it such a controversy?
    Why is there a problem when insurance companies revoke insurance mid treatment because they claim it was a preexisting condition?
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #25
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1
    Barrack Obama = Jimmy Carter 2.0

    Agreed.. Both took office after the previous administration totally screwed the country up...

  11. #26
    Forum Fanatic khronosschoty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,185
    I'm not sure I'd say we have a "right" to health care but I do feel 100% that we have an obligation to care for everyone.
    #magi

  12. #27
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan4GS View Post
    If I build a house but let you cut the ribbon before we move in, who really built it?
    If the house you built was only half fisnished, crumbling and 100% uninhabitable when you turned it over then yes the one who took over it has a significant claim to the "glory".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan4GS View Post
    As far as healthcare being a "right", we're only entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
    Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"

    So that would imply to give you an inalienable right to treatment for any condition that could potentially be life threatening, which nearly any illness can be/will be if it goes untreated.

    Quote Originally Posted by khronosschoty View Post
    I'm not sure I'd say we have a "right" to health care but I do feel 100% that we have an obligation to care for everyone.
    Article 3 and the expansion in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights would disagree with you.

    Plus once you cover everything that can be considered life threatening as per the "Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness" it would simply be cheaper for a society to include everything else than to cater to a separate system for everything else. Plus wouldn't a painful or debilitating but otherwise non-lethal illness go against the inalienable "pursuit of happiness"?
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  13. #28
    Forum Fanatic khronosschoty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    If the house you built was only half fisnished, crumbling and 100% uninhabitable when you turned it over then yes the one who took over it has a significant claim to the "glory".


    Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"

    So that would imply to give you an inalienable right to treatment for any condition that could potentially be life threatening, which nearly any illness can be/will be if it goes untreated.


    Article 3 and the expansion in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights would disagree with you.

    Plus once you cover everything that can be considered life threatening as per the "Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness" it would simply be cheaper for a society to include everything else than to cater to a separate system for everything else. Plus wouldn't a painful or debilitating but otherwise non-lethal illness go against the inalienable "pursuit of happiness"?
    Blackstone explains it the way I did.
    #magi

  14. #29
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    Plus once you cover everything that can be considered life threatening as per the "Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness" it would simply be cheaper for a society to include everything else than to cater to a separate system for everything else. Plus wouldn't a painful or debilitating but otherwise non-lethal illness go against the inalienable "pursuit of happiness"?
    Using "pursuit of happiness" as a blanket statement has it's limits. You're entitled to the pursuit of happiness, not necessarily happiness. Say for instance you've got a bad back (nothing dangerous and debilitating, just a chronic pain sort of thing). You aren't entitled to have people fix the problem for free. You're entitled to seeking a solution and deciding to do it if you want to do so.

    Using another example to show the problem. Let's say Brad loves playing Call of Duty. The new CoD was just released. Brad isn't entitled to have the government pay for a copy of the game because that would make him happy. The only thing Brad is entitled to is being allowed to purchase the game if he wants (and meets the legal requirements).

  15. #30
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    Using "pursuit of happiness" as a blanket statement has it's limits. You're entitled to the pursuit of happiness, not necessarily happiness. Say for instance you've got a bad back (nothing dangerous and debilitating, just a chronic pain sort of thing). You aren't entitled to have people fix the problem for free. You're entitled to seeking a solution and deciding to do it if you want to do so.

    Using another example to show the problem. Let's say Brad loves playing Call of Duty. The new CoD was just released. Brad isn't entitled to have the government pay for a copy of the game because that would make him happy. The only thing Brad is entitled to is being allowed to purchase the game if he wants (and meets the legal requirements).
    Yeah, by painful I meant the sorta pain you need continuous medication, of the variety that's stronger than say Ibuprofen or Paracetamol. Things which tends to be prescription only and which therefore typically implies that the pain is very bad without them because stuff that's prescription only is typically either significantly addictive and/or has nasty potential side effects.
    For example "a bad back" where you need to, say take regular morphine injections to be able to lead a normal/decent life is definitely something that should be covered imo.

    Sorry if that wasn't clear that I didn't mean to include minor aches and such.
    Last edited by Elldallan; 16-10-2015 at 02:29.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •