FatHobbit;1814002 wrote:Definitely agree. It's not really new that politicians promise the world to get elected but it seems to be new that everyone thinks the govt should take care of EVERY FUCKING THING. Why is healthcare a right? Why is educationa right? And who in their right mind thinks the govt paying for everything will bring costs down? The only way they can control the cost is to force people to accept what they are paying...

Pretty sad that the richest nation on Earth can't provide healthcare and education to its own citizens.

sleeper;1814011 wrote:And your point?

Just wonder who you'd actually like then since a guy you can't stand is preferable to the two nominees.

sleeper;1813993 wrote:Certainly better than HRC or Trump. Not sure how you can argue against that.

Policy wise? I'd swallow the poison pill and take Hillary.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1814022 wrote:Just wonder who you'd actually like then since a guy you can't stand is preferable to the two nominees.

None of them. I'd like Obama for a 3rd term. He's done a decent job outside of a few hiccups.

like_that;1814023 wrote:Policy wise? I'd swallow the poison pill and take Hillary.

None of Bernie's ideas are going to get implemented.

sleeper;1814027 wrote:None of them. I'd like Obama for a 3rd term. He's done a decent job outside of a few hiccups.

Lololololololol Obama hasn't done shit but raise premiums for health care and divide the nation. The guy is a joke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CenterBHSFan;1813953 wrote:In and of itself, no. But to branch off of this a little further, the Judeo-Christian moral compass backing it rather is. If we take the time to delve into culture and subculture of the founding of our country we reach a deeper understanding. And although there's enough written word THERE to write several books, in this forum we can only oversimplify things. And even though people tend to marginalize this fact to suit their purpose and argument, it's not really as simple as that. For better or for worse.

Even the "Judeo-Christian" moral compass was as much cultural as it was religious, though. I'm not suggesting that none of the men who founded the country were religious. But the founding wasn't necessarily supposed to involve the religiosity of those who were into its underpinnings any more than their cultural norms would have already dictated.

Con_Alma;1813955 wrote:Understood....but in expelling that "person" which is a child the parent is exposed to the laws of neglect and abuse. The mother may have a right to her body and while exercising her rights she will have broken other laws.

Expelling the person is merely disallowing it access to her body. To suggest that she is breaking other laws by disallowing access would be akin to suggesting she would break other laws by not providing her own blood for a transfusion for her child. If the child cannot survive without access to it, that doesn't legally oblige her to grant access to it. A child's (hell, any person's) right to life ends at its need to another person's biological material. It may be socially uncouth to refer to a fetus's relationship with the parent as a parasitic relationship, but even if the mother forms an emotional bond with the child, it still would seem to fit the biological definition of a parasitic relationship.

Were the fetus able to be prevented from using the mother's body against her will and still survive, perhaps then, I could see your point, and I WOULD suggest that this might be grounds for late-term abortions to be illegal ... assuming, again, we can establish a fetus as a person at that stage.

Con_Alma;1813955 wrote: That's where we disagree. If it were a person the mother would have a legal obligation to provide it basic care.

I agree, but basic care does not include access to her body without her consent, even if the absence of that access puts the offspring at risk or prevents its survival.

sleeper;1814013 wrote:Pretty sad that the richest nation on Earth can't provide healthcare and education to its own citizens.

When we say "richest," are we including the debt as a liability? The country itself is pretty far into the red.

Individuals can provide those things, though, if they deem them valuable (I'm beginning to call shenanigans on the value of the typical college degree, though).

sleeper;1814028 wrote:None of Bernie's ideas are going to get implemented.

Which is why I might just agree with you that Sanders is better than the current front-runners. I hate his fiscal policy, but it's radical enough that there's no way it passes the House or Senate. And if he focuses on social issues when it comes to replacing Scalia, it might not be as bad as Trump or Clinton.

When we say "richest," are we including the debt as a liability? The country itself is pretty far into the red.

No I am not. Why would I? The debt is in US dollars and we control the value of that currency; which is not only THE reserve currency in the world but is also protected by the greatest military the world has ever seen.

There's no reason we can't provide healthcare and education to our people at a low cost.

sleeper;1814013 wrote:Pretty sad that the richest nation on Earth can't provide healthcare and education to its own citizens.

If you are referring to the government, it is $20 trillion in debt, with another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Governments provide nothing; only productive people provide.

sleeper;1814040 wrote:No I am not. Why would I? The debt is in US dollars and we control the value of that currency; which is not only THE reserve currency in the world but is also protected by the greatest military the world has ever seen.

There's no reason we can't provide healthcare and education to our people at a low cost.

But in order to devalue the debt, we'd also be devaluing our own economy, since the both of them are rooted in the same currency.

As for the healthcare and education, the only real way to lower the cost would be to lower what is being paid out to anyone involved in the process. Otherwise, the cost itself is the same. Whether or not we allocate the burden elsewhere is another story, but it doesn't change the cost.

And more pointedly, I don't trust our nation to provide those efficiently or competently, and I don't know that I could theoretically justify paying bureaucratic positions to oversee it.

O-Trap;1814036 wrote:Even the "Judeo-Christian" moral compass was as much cultural as it was religious, though. I'm not suggesting that none of the men who founded the country were religious. But the founding wasn't necessarily supposed to involve the religiosity of those who were into its underpinnings any more than their cultural norms would have already dictated.

There are good arguments to the debate either way. On this we can agree. But a person cannot factually say that it was or it wasn't. But even the least read person on the subject can definitely see where religion left an imprint all over the place - from the class system to law (which was, in many cases, hand-in-hand).
Along the same lines, have you ever read any of Catherine Clinton's works? Although her subject was not exactly or particularly about what we've discussed, she does show direct correlations in regards to it as it relates to her topic.

sleeper;1814013 wrote:Pretty sad that the richest nation on Earth can't provide healthcare and education to its own citizens.

It's pretty sad when people go hungry in the richest nation on earth. Where do you draw the line for what government should provide?

Perhaps this should be carried over into the Obamacare thread.

O-Trap;1814047 wrote:But in order to devalue the debt, we'd also be devaluing our own economy, since the both of them are rooted in the same currency.

As for the healthcare and education, the only real way to lower the cost would be to lower what is being paid out to anyone involved in the process. Otherwise, the cost itself is the same. Whether or not we allocate the burden elsewhere is another story, but it doesn't change the cost.

And more pointedly, I don't trust our nation to provide those efficiently or competently, and I don't know that I could theoretically justify paying bureaucratic positions to oversee it.

Csst is lowered substantially when you remove profit from the equation. Healthcare insurance companies are not non-profits.

QuakerOats;1814045 wrote:If you are referring to the government, it is $20 trillion in debt, with another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Governments provide nothing; only productive people provide.

And a huge GDP. I'm not worried.

FatHobbit;1814056 wrote:It's pretty sad when people go hungry in the richest nation on earth. Where do you draw the line for what government should provide?

Perhaps this should be carried over into the Obamacare thread.

You provide the basics: food, shelter, healthcare, and education. People will still work because people want stuff. It's not hard.

CenterBHSFan;1814053 wrote:But a person cannot factually say that it was or it wasn't.

Apologies. I should have emphasized the word 'necessarily'. The usage of popular religious phrases that have made their way into becoming colloquialisms as part of a culture doesn't require religion to be a motivator by necessity. That was the point I was trying to make.

CenterBHSFan;1814053 wrote:But even the least read person on the subject can definitely see where religion left an imprint all over the place - from the class system to law (which was, in many cases, hand-in-hand).

Again, perhaps, but I don't think it's definitive beyond cultural norms.

CenterBHSFan;1814053 wrote:Along the same lines, have you ever read any of Catherine Clinton's works? Although her subject was not exactly or particularly about what we've discussed, she does show direct correlations in regards to it as it relates to her topic.

I think so. I read some excerpts about the Civil War that I believe are attributed to her, but I'm not sure. It's been awhile. What was the point she's made that is compelling within this discussion, if you wouldn't mind?

sleeper;1814061 wrote:Csst is lowered substantially when you remove profit from the equation. Healthcare insurance companies are not non-profits.

Of course not. Insurance requires a substantial amount of capital. Those who help provide that capital typically do so for the purpose of profiting. Were they to not profit, they likely would put their money to work elsewhere.

sleeper;1814063 wrote:You provide the basics: food, shelter, healthcare, and education. People will still work because people want stuff. It's not hard.

Food: There are numerous provisions already in existence.

Shelter: This is also often provided through Section 8. Also, with the advent of 3D printing on the scale necessary for housing, the potential is there to make it far more affordable to actually own a home on a tighter budget.

Healthcare: There are already assistance programs (at least locally), as well as Medicaid.

Education: I'm assuming the majority of children are educated through publicly funded education through grade 12 already. The rest at least have the option, most likely.


I would submit that none of these are run well, and that this is the reason I would hesitate to give the same institutions the ability to control and oversee more. It's easy to engage in fraud. The Section 8 housing is typically not the safest or best-kept place to live. The hole that Medicaid was originally intended to fill still exists, as the market responded to the new source of revenue within the healthcare industry. And education, as it stands, is largely ineffective at anything other than equipping students in a particular field ... the way a trade school would.

Now, personally, I don't like the idea of publicly funding any of these. I do think we have a moral obligation to take care of our communities as the needs arise and based on the needs that we, ourselves, see (which a governing body anywhere above the city level would not see effectively).

However, if we're going to try to adequately provide the necessities for every person in the country, I think the most effective (read: still not very effective, but more so than the alternatives) way to do it would be a basic income. Allowing all other things to remain privatized, but provide a set annual amount to every citizen, regardless of wealth or alternative income. They would then be free to spend it on the necessities, or if they found more frugal ways to live, they could even spend it on indulgences.

This would, I believe, do two things:

• It would remove poverty as grounds for why someone is unable to afford something, creating a less charged society.
• It would essentially eliminate fraud within the assistance programs.

Now, obviously, it comes with challenges, and those would likely need addressed beforehand. However, I'd submit that it's probably the most efficient way to provide the basic necessities while mitigating fraud, inefficiency, and excessive documentation.

O-Trap;1814036 wrote:...

Expelling the person is merely disallowing it access to her body. To suggest that she is breaking other laws by disallowing access would be akin to suggesting she would break other laws by not providing her own blood for a transfusion for her child. If the child cannot survive without access to it, that doesn't legally oblige her to grant access to it. A child's (hell, any person's) right to life ends at its need to another person's biological material. It may be socially uncouth to refer to a fetus's relationship with the parent as a parasitic relationship, but even if the mother forms an emotional bond with the child, it still would seem to fit the biological definition of a parasitic relationship.

Were the fetus able to be prevented from using the mother's body against her will and still survive, perhaps then, I could see your point, and I WOULD suggest that this might be grounds for late-term abortions to be illegal ... assuming, again, we can establish a fetus as a person at that stage. ...

I have made no mention for the illegality of abortion. I have not suggested the child have any rights or access to the mother's body. I have only pointed out that assuming person-hood at conception creates for the immediate, legal obligation of care as a parent. At a minimum it would be a new open for legal argument....which is why I cautioned on the use of immediate person-hood. You don't have to see my point at all....your assumption of person-hood changes the potential for how the proponents of stopping abortion can address the courts. It's becomes different with your significant assumption.

O-Trap;1814036 wrote:...I agree, but basic care does not include access to her body without her consent, even if the absence of that access puts the offspring at risk or prevents its survival.


..

If you agree as you stated that she has that legal obligation to provide basic care then I she also the ability to not comply with said responsibility ans be held responsible for not doing so. I don't care id she takes the route of having access to her body or not. Assuming person-hood provides the opportunity to arue legally and force the courts to make another determination of the issue. With abortion already being legal....there's really no reason to make an assumption of person-hood and open the door to another ruling.

O-Trap;1814150 wrote:However, if we're going to try to adequately provide the necessities for every person in the country, I think the most effective (read: still not very effective, but more so than the alternatives) way to do it would be a basic income. Allowing all other things to remain privatized, but provide a set annual amount to every citizen, regardless of wealth or alternative income. They would then be free to spend it on the necessities, or if they found more frugal ways to live, they could even spend it on indulgences.

This would, I believe, do two things:

• It would remove poverty as grounds for why someone is unable to afford something, creating a less charged society.
• It would essentially eliminate fraud within the assistance programs.

Now, obviously, it comes with challenges, and those would likely need addressed beforehand. However, I'd submit that it's probably the most efficient way to provide the basic necessities while mitigating fraud, inefficiency, and excessive documentation.

In my opinion, if you provide a base income, the only thing that will do is drive prices up. In our class system, the market will always need a "lower class." Sure, there will be some cheaper things, but the middle class will drive the prices for your normal goods. Prices will be set based on supply and demand for the middle class. You could set your poverty threshold at $100k, and the market will adjust accordingly.

ernest_t_bass;1814177 wrote:In my opinion, if you provide a base income, the only thing that will do is drive prices up. In our class system, the market will always need a "lower class." Sure, there will be some cheaper things, but the middle class will drive the prices for your normal goods. Prices will be set based on supply and demand for the middle class. You could set your poverty threshold at $100k, and the market will adjust accordingly.

That's not entirely true. In many cases, I just sell a lot more widgets for a similar price rather than sell the same number for a lot more. In cases like homes/rentals, you are probably correct.

gut;1814178 wrote:That's not entirely true. In many cases, I just sell a lot more widgets for a similar price rather than sell the same number for a lot more. In cases like homes/rentals, you are probably correct.

When there is more money, prices will go up. Inflation will happen.

ernest_t_bass;1814177 wrote:In my opinion, if you provide a base income, the only thing that will do is drive prices up. In our class system, the market will always need a "lower class." Sure, there will be some cheaper things, but the middle class will drive the prices for your normal goods. Prices will be set based on supply and demand for the middle class. You could set your poverty threshold at $100k, and the market will adjust accordingly.

The difference here is that labor costs will go down. An income might only be $8K a year instead of $38K a year, if the basic income is set at $30K. Minimum wage laws would essentially be obsolete, because without them, people would still have access to a sufficient (in theory) income. There wouldn't necessarily be a huge demand increase for most items.

ernest_t_bass;1814182 wrote:When there is more money, prices will go up. Inflation will happen.

Yes, but it is not necessarily dollar for dollar. There's also the supply side of the equation - if more goods are produced, there isn't excess demand to drive prices up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews

Pretty much rape culture personified.

Commander of Awesome;1814224 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews

Pretty much rape culture personified.

Pretty bad look, but i knew people would act righteous about it and they are already delivering.