US Healthcare reform

Page 18 of 20 [ 305 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Aug 2009, 3:45 am

Sand wrote:

Which is what I do in Finland and the system works for me with no problems.

Excellent! Unfortunately Obama and Democrats want us to become Canada, not Finland.

ruveyn

HAL_9000
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 250

30 Aug 2009, 3:47 am

I find the constitution a funny thing. And I find it funny the way people believe in it like they believe in God. Is it powered by the Jedi force or something? Will it continue to exist if a giant alien army invaded the USA and destroyed the government? Maybe more people should just come out and say they don't give a s**t about anyone else other than their family, and that they don't want to pay to keep someone else alive.

At least we'd all know where we stand then. The only reason people talk about the constitution, in my eyes, is because it gives them a convenient shield to hide the less publically acceptable desires behind.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2009, 3:49 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

Which is what I do in Finland and the system works for me with no problems.

Excellent! Unfortunately Obama and Democrats want us to become Canada, not Finland.

ruveyn

Since the difference is probably only a matter of geography I wonder what your objections might be.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

30 Aug 2009, 7:55 am

HAL_9000 wrote:

Irony.

You state it very simply and correct.

In a survivalist view, you are only responsible for yourself and your family. Community (neighbors) are outside and not an obligation above you and yours. Total strangers don't even factor in.

This is the order of nature. If every man must care for him and his own, then every man who does not (or will not) do so perishes and leaves the strong and responsible to carry on. THIS is how the Constitution is modeled. Government does no more than what is absolutely needful. Men are left to fend for themselves and deal with their own affairs without government interference.

The more you want government to do stuff for you, the more you go against the natural order.

If you care for total strangers, then give of YOUR substance. You have no right to TAKE of MY substance to provide a social good YOU want to practice.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Aug 2009, 7:56 am

Sand wrote:

Since the difference is probably only a matter of geography I wonder what your objections might be.

We of the English speaking world have traditionally made a muck of Socialism. We are very bad at it. Too much of English history is aimed toward individualism. That is why the doctrine of rights and limited government originated in England (read Locke on this). Even John Stuart Mill was not a wholehearted socialist.

Canada gets away with its stupidities, because we here in the U.S. foot the bill. We do their defense, for example. Without us, Latvia could defeat Canada in a war. England lived off the capital of its empire which it gathered before it because a wuss socialist country. But they went bankrupt. Eventually their foolish socialism collapsed. Lady Margret had a thing or two to do with that. Australia and New Zealand manage o.k., I guess.

ruveyn

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

30 Aug 2009, 9:08 am

zer0netgain wrote:

HAL_9000 wrote:

What this stuff about individualism being the order of nature? Human traditionally live in tighten community becaucse we are programed to do so. We are programmed to do so because tha's how our ancestors menaged to survive. I don't know if this conform to this suposed "natural order" or not, but community is certainly what is natural to humans.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2009, 9:09 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

Since the difference is probably only a matter of geography I wonder what your objections might be.

Therefore speaking English makes a country incompetent in handling socialism. I'm beginning to get a handle on your problem with clear thinking.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Aug 2009, 9:59 am

Sand wrote:

[
Therefore speaking English makes a country incompetent in handling socialism. I'm beginning to get a handle on your problem with clear thinking.

I am speaking of the culture and history of England and its daughter nations and holdings. The English never had the right psychology for Socialism. There was too much individualism in the culture. That is why the U.S. never amounted to a credible imperial power. In addition to being individualists, Americans want to be loved and that is exactly wrong for a wannabe imperialist. Machiavelli taught us that a Prince must be feared, rather loved.

American grew up with a dominant individualist culture. When the switchover occurred in the late 19th and early 20th century we never did grasp the proper Socialist spirit. Deep down we want it for Ourselves, Individually and to hell with Society. That is the Real America. Mean, nasty and selfish. The America I love.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2009, 10:52 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

[
Therefore speaking English makes a country incompetent in handling socialism. I'm beginning to get a handle on your problem with clear thinking.

The English never had the right psychology for Socialism. There was too much individualism in the culture. That is why the U.S. never amounted to a credible imperial power.

Neither the English nor he Americans had the culture to become an imperial power? OH MY GOODNESS, ruveyn! This is really one of your very, very bad days.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Aug 2009, 11:13 am

Sand wrote:

Neither the English nor he Americans had the culture to become an imperial power? OH MY GOODNESS, ruveyn! This is really one of your very, very bad days.

Where is the U.S. Empire? The only oversea territory we have is some dinky island in the Pacific, Guam I think. We gave up Cuba, the Phillipenes (gotten by conquest from Spain). We have no sovereign holdings in central America or south America. We have sliver at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. That is vast holding, yes? The Puerto Ricans insist on their commonwealth standing with the U.S. in election after election. They don't want to be the 51st State. They have a cushy deal right now. The U.S. tried to be an imperialist at the end of the 19th century and sent Marines to Nicaraugua in the 20's and 30's. Those days are over. Even the United Fruit nonsense has come to an end.

We were no good at imperialism. The Brits were better. Even the French. The Romans were the best of all. The only time we excelled was when we stole most of our piece of North America from the indigenous peoples. We screwed the Injuns over royally.

You will pardon me if I stick to historical and geographical facts. I will not indulge my political prejudices and call them Truth.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2009, 11:20 am

Perhaps you can forget the CIA coup in Iran, the huge number of overseas US military bases, the Iraq war, the many interferences in South American politics including the installation of Pinochet, which are, I'm afraid, not fantasies. You're living in the American cloud cuckoo dream world.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Aug 2009, 11:37 am

Sand wrote:

I don't forget them for a minute. Even so, the U.S. has no sovereign standing or power there. As to Pinochet, he is dead and the U.S. is well out of South America. The C.I.A. was never as potent or effective as its enemies claimed.

Compare that to the Brits or the Romans. They owned and they ruled. Does the U.S. do the same?

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Aug 2009, 11:50 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

I'm surprised at you ruveyn, are you really so naive that you think the US has to maintain troops in a country to control it. Bribery works much more efficiently. The US tried to take over Viet Nam with its American form of love with carpet bombing and agent orange so that the population still suffers from its love and kindness but it just didn't work. Just as it's not working in Afghanistan. American love just isn't very efficient these days but the drugs are still coming out and do you really think the US government isn't involved with all those billions of dollars that US citizens are eagerly paying for their fixes? US legislators are trooping off to jail every week for corruption for a lot less treasure than pours through the drug cartels. There are other ways of maintaining control of a country than with garrisons.

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

30 Aug 2009, 11:57 am

There's actually three way to legitimize power : Military might, Ideological superiority (includes religions), and noble birth. Later on, the birth was replaced by a proper grasp of trade mechanisms.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

30 Aug 2009, 2:57 pm

Tollorin wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

HAL_9000 wrote:

Ah, but you are overlooking the fact that these "communities" humans used to live in had a simple rule....if you didn't work, you didn't eat.

Communal living for the sake of survival (pooled resources) mandates that all work in whatever capacity they can for the good of the whole. Anyone who WILL NOT do that is cast out.

America is rooted in a very individualistic spirit, but our communities prospered when we adhered to the rule that you had to produce or get out. What's destroying American society is the idea that you are entitled to everything without having to work for it. The lazy drain off resources produced by those who are working, and those that work don't like it one bit.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

30 Aug 2009, 8:21 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

Tollorin wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

HAL_9000 wrote:

What's destroying American society is the obscene amount of wealth and power that has been allowed to accumulate at the top. The greed and power of corporations has been nearly completely unchecked at the expense of the middle class. While government has turned a blind eye, it has all trickled up. The insurance industry was created to cover all services/losses for a client who promptly paid their premiums. Nowadays, we receive pages and pages of exclusions for a far higher premium than ever before. It's a racket and we're all getting screwed.

Page 18 of 20 [ 305 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Next

Jump to:

US Healthcare reform Post Reply New Topic

US Healthcare reform