without loads and loads of buearacracy, how do make the distinction?I voted make the buttholes get a job.
I'm all for helping a person if through no fault of their own things have gone wrong.
I'm also dead set aginst the bums that play and milk the system.
yes, i totally agreethe private charity selection..... seems to strip some buearacracy away. More hands on I guess in assessing the need.
of course, but do enough people in this country feel that way to support those who cannot provide for themselves?And I always like people having the choice to help rather than being forced to
bigger boobs and nads?I will disagree a tad here, even in countries with so called universal healthcare or single payer system or whatever you want to call it...people don't always get the healthcare they "need", if they did expalin why mortality rates are higher for prostate or breast cancer in canada or england compared to the US?of course, but do enough people in this country feel that way to support those who cannot provide for themselves?
in the richest country in the world, i just don't see how we can accept that there are those who do not get the healthcare they need for want of the money. its immoral.
if you can boil that down to one sentence, i will add it to the pollDont agree with any of the options and will offer my own. We have several problems that are creating this mess lets deal with them all.
If a person is healthy enough to work then they will be put to work and given the opportunity to pay into an insurance program just like every one else. We have tons of infrastructure projects that need doing time to kill both birds.
If the person though infirmity is unable to work then they would be treated as any civil society and given the necessities until they no longer need the help.
If a person refuses to work then let em starve. If they don't belong here send them back. If they illegally harm another person or cheat the state put them to work until they pay back to the victim or state an amount deemed suitable to the court up to and including forfeiture of their entire life, all funds must be from this work and not personal fortunes. If proven they are too dangerous to work then the penalty is a speedy death.
Will that solve 100% of the problem? We dont know its never really been tried. Its time to end this entitlement disaster and restore some dignity.
i hate to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like govt subsidized health care for the poor. unless you are asking the insurance companies to voluntarily lower their prices so that the poor can afford it to. sorry, that just aint gonna happen. they are in this business to make money, and you don't make money by selling your product for less than it costs you to make it.Hehe remove all but the last period. If as it seems there must be some reform in health care then it must focus on personal responsibility.
So call it a Common Sense approach, benefits are paid for by the recipient. All I suggest is giving the poor the ability though hard work to pay their own way. This will instill dignity and result in fewer poor, not though government handouts but by their own hand.
so, can we agree that the description is "gov't subsidized health care for tthe poor based on a sliding scale for those who can prove themselves productive members of society"You asked I answered, since we get in return for the money a service in the form of labor we are not giving any one anything. If we must help them then we must help to restore dignity and work ethics not bloat welfare roles that destroy the human spirit.
i disagree, never in the history of the world has there been a society that did not have "the poor" as a class. there have been and are currently societies that allowed for upward mobility based on a strong work ethic and desire to succeed. the protestant ethic may be a cure in individual cases, but it will not make the poor disappear as a class.Poor is a relative term. Poor in the US today would be filthy rich in any other time or place. How long until you realize that this country is not like any that exists now or ever before. Here hard work can indeed eliminate poverty in all but the most specail of cases. We have never achieved more than the smallest fraction of this countries true potential.
so your choice is just to leave it the way it is?What I would offer them are jobs doing a task that we must pay for anyway with contributions paid like any other employee. It is not a subsidy to the poor because there is no requirement to be poor to participate. But it is unlikely anyone would want to sign on to this if they already had better. But if I had my choice nothing would be done since the government will only foul it up no matter how well intentioned.
many millions have died at the hands of those who invoke the name of Christ, was he a fool too?Marx was indeed a fool, knew nothing of human nature, subsisted off the charity of others and was rather hypocritical in his personal life. In other words no more brilliant than those that influenced Hitler. All accomplished the same thing, human misery on scales thought unbelievable before.
did marx advocate the killing of massive amounts of people?No bomber Christ understood human nature perfectly and never advocated anything other than his own actions. You are straining here and on the wrong side of this matter.many millions have died at the hands of those who invoke the name of Christ, was he a fool too?Marx was indeed a fool, knew nothing of human nature, subsisted off the charity of others and was rather hypocritical in his personal life. In other words no more brilliant than those that influenced Hitler. All accomplished the same thing, human misery on scales thought unbelievable before.
just so you know, i'm not comparing Marx to Christ, i'm just saying that both have had their words and intentions twisted to further the ends of evil people
Stating that Christ is the only hope of salvation for humanity is a purely christian ideal (one that I agree with by the way, but its still strictly a belief). To the objective outside observer, one might view Christ as the cause of much suffering in the world as many people have taken his message and perverted it and used it to murder millions (Christopher Columbus, the Spanish conquest of Latin America, the crusades, the reformation of Europe, manifest destiny...the list goes on and on). Is it the fault of Christ that man has twisted his words and used him as a sword to accomplish their own means? I believe the same holds true for Marx (though without the whole 'deity' thing). Marx advocated revolution, which always comes with death and violence. but didn't christ talk about returning to earth with a sword in hand, ready do dole out a monumental whoopass to the unbeliever? all i am saying is this, people will take someone who is influential and use them for their own purposes, and often that means a lot of blood. hell, even Ghandi had his zealots, despite his hunger strikes and his perpetual message of non-violence.Any one advocating and justifying tyranny advocates brutality, genocide, murder, and all manner of human misery. At this point I have to ask have you even read Marx? His position that revolution and civil war would be required to bring about the dictatorship of the people or his so called transition period soaks his writing in blood before it was even shed. Any that would defend this person and even compare him to our only hope of salvation places them in a position as an enemy of humanity as a whole.
Have we not paid a high enough price for Marx's delusions? Have we not had enough of these socialist utopia nightmares?
I can only hope you are making this defense from a position of one who has been fooled, if not then I am truly sorry for you.
+1And people in other states are just ****ed?In IA my aunt got very sick with cancer and couldnt work anymore, my uncle lost his job because of her being in the hospital and COBRA was like 900 per month, the state kicked in and helped, she didnt make it but they at least paid the docs for the treatments... a lot better than what our fed is trying to push through.
I was in the ER recently (because my insurance doesn't cover us having our own personal doctor) for something called "Epigloic Appendagitis". The CT scan to figure out what was wrong with me cost $5,000. The emergency room fee was $1,379. And then there was a prescription for Vicodin to help with the pain until it went away in a few days. All that cost $6,379. I am lucky that I'm only paying just under $2,000 of that, and even more lucky that our flex spending account will cover all that.
For an illness that could have been appendicitis but wound up being relatively minor and clearing up in a few days. Our flex spending plan is gonna be dry. If me or my wife gets sick or injured, we're screwed. The insurance company will pay 80% of the bill, yeah. For a $10,000 bill, well within the realm of possibility, we'll be paying $2,000. And that's considered lucky. We're extremely fortunate to have a health insurance plan like that, because my wife works for a goddamn hospital. My coworkers, using my employer's plan, can't even afford school vaccinations for their kids.
How close is the average American to bankruptcy? One serious illness? Two? How many people put off trips to the doctor or the ER because they can't afford it because prices are so retardedly high? How many people die as a result? And this is somehow defensible? Somehow this is the best health care system in the world?
And don't give me some bullshat line about how the wait times are so much worse in places like Canada or France or the UK or Japan. If you're waiting in the ER at Grant Hospital in downtown Columbus, you're there for 6-8 hours. People die in Canada waiting for operations? Maybe. But people die in the US just waiting in the ERs. ****ing ridiculous. How do we expect to compete as a nation when we consider this to be even remotely acceptable?
that we can agree on.You know Im still waiting on someone to explain why I should have to pay for someone else to have an abortion. Health care was supposed to be a private matter isn't that at the heart of Roe v Wade? Seems the sham is pretty clear now.
to quote my buddy yoda "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."Ive a feeling if you lost some of the hopelessness and cynicism replaced it with anger and you would find we agreed on a lot. That is not a put down, we all go though the phases.
spielberg? nah man, george lucasGiven Spielberg's results in life lessons I wouldn't put much stock into his teachings.
Its time to get pissed!