Lucky...

OK, fair enough, I did that in the previous post. Uni-care = universal care. Universal care is healthcare for all people in simple terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care Point is, our kids will never pay off this debt. If the world is still inhabited by humans in 200 years, the debt will likely be larger than it is now, even if harsh measures are implemented to avoid any and all expenditures. Perhaps if we get more presidents like Clinton who have the guts to tax the rich we will see the debt start dropping, but the rate will be so slow it will be negligible. Overspending is not ok, but neither is allowing 1/6th of your population to go w/o healthcare. The answer is taking the middlemen out and establishing some sort of universal care. Want a model? Canada: their dollar is about to pass us again and they have soc med; how is it that we don't have soc med and our dollar is tanking and has been since GWB? Obvioulsy avoiding soc med isn't the key to fiscal success. Again, no correaltion. With the exception of the Clinton era, he inherited a 250B/yr debt increase and left 33B, so he was part of the fix, as well he left a 236B surplus. The problem is that Reagan and GWB cut taxes and overspent, but debt increases in the Civil War, WWII and VN were substantial, but justified. Really???? Wrong, the debt fell VERY SLIGHTLY for a couple years during Eisenhower and then again in 1969 allegedly from VN surplusses, but no substantial debt has ever been paid down with the exception of during Andrew Jackson on the 1830's where the Revolutionary War debt was paid down. Exactly, tiny by comparison, but still substantial, esp considering being adjusted for inflation. IOW's, the 3T debt that occurred under Reagan / Bush was about as much as the 5T under GWB, adjusting for inflation. Not at all, adjust them for inflation. Also, I haven't lived in this forum since it's inception, but I don't recall you complaining about 600B yr military spending. We're back to a basic partisan argument of pro-military spending versus pro-social spending and the answer would be that it's our turn to socialize the country, then your party will takeover again and we will militarize the world again. But I'm still waiting to hear how an injustice is placed upon you.

Is this the old, "Do we have a bad connection" line? Tom, you claimed there would be an injustice to you if uni-care is passed, what do you mean by that? I see what Billvon means. I'm not going to make this an argument of semantics, spelling errors or anything petty, uni-care is universal care, more commonly called socialized medicine, but most appropriately called universal care. Frankly, you pick the term and we'll go with it, but I just want to hear how you thinbk an injustice will be served upon you if some form of medical care is extended to everyone.

As an analogy, I used to ride GSXR's back in the 80's and I would conflict with Harley guys who would make this, "Buy American" argument, then drive off in their $20k Landcruiser. Tom, it's tired, it's old, there is no connect between taxes and expenditures other than they are both estblished by congress and signed by the president. Your taxes were raised on Jan 20, 1989, Jan 20, 1993, Jan 20, 2008....the rest is just accademic. Uni-care pass or fail, your taxes are going to be raised.

So, you're saying "don't worry about it--we'll just borrow the money like everyone has done for the last 30 years, and let our kids pay it off?" Let me guess, I'm not allowed to object to the injustice of that because it's my children who foot the bill, rather than me, personally? So am I to assume that you retract your claim that uni-care of any sort is an injustice? I know, caught in the moment and used it as an abstract exadgeration; I get it. - This, 'let our kids pay it off' is tired. It's not like a temporary loan, we have been a debtor nation BEFORE we became a nation, as with virtually every nation. It's really tired to think a logical process of we borrow - they pay exists. I mean, it's been a revolving credit card for 233+ years, do you think the lenders see getting paid back, ever? - BTW, again, you posted borrowed for the last 30 years, you may have missed the "2" before the "30", as we have been a debtor nation before our inception as a nation. Civil War and WWII borrowing was huge, then Reagan came along and dwarfed that borrowing not in a time of war, GWB came along and fabricated a war and then decided cutting taxes would be a good idea, these 2 fools account for vitually all of the debt, but we have borrowed fo 233+ years. - Object all you want, I'm just trying to understand the context of your injustice.

I'm only permitted to object to one sort of injustice? How's that work? Why do you keep dancing around the horse? It was your word; INJUSTICE, I'm simply asking you to define what you mean. I don't think you find it to be a moral injustice that people w/o medical care may soon be getting it for the sake of their health. I think you are claiming an injustice because you think you will be paying for it, I just want to see how that works. Please explain in your own terms, but please connect the cost for uni-care, if passed, and how that will affect you to create this injustice.

No, but it was YOUR CLAIM that declared any form of uni-care an injustice, I'm just asking you to support your claim and I proposed an objective template by which to do so. Bad thing or not, correlate tax increases or decreases based upon any kind of spending, then describe how uni-care will cost you a penny. It's your claim of injustice, I'm just asking you to descibe your process to me. You still haven't established how the rich, the MC or the poor will be taxed if uni-care passes. I'm not saying to tax the rich for it, I'm saying to implement some form of uni-care so we can be "normal" with industrialized nations. Again, you have to draw a correlation between taxation and spending. WHat I illustrated was that there is no correaltion: - Reagan cut taxes and raised spending enormously - GHWB cut spending and raised taxes - Clinton raised taxes and cut spending - GWB cut taxes EXTREMELY and INSANELY increased spending Actually, I could make the argument by using the last 28 years that if we can just increase spending then taxes will fall. Statistically and over a fair sample size that is evidenced. But I think taxes will raise, esp for the rich regardless of uni-care, but uni-care won't be the driver for it.

OMG, another DZ.COM first; a thread that tangents OH THE HUMANITY

You're stereotyping. I'm hoping you just really don't understand, so I'm going to try to explain. I do feel like we ought to help each other. But I'm not so convinced of my moral superiority that I'm willing to force you to live by my moral code. If you don't want to help people, that's your right, and I have no right to force you. The question isn't "should we help people?" The question is "are we morally justified in forcing people to help others?" My answer to the first questions is "yes." My answer to the second is "no." Please don't confuse the issue by thinking that my answer to the first is something else. But your point in a post right around this one is that taxation is an injustice, are you talking about a moral injustice? If so, pls explain.

My underlying point was: The fact that an injustice is already being done to you does not mean you ought to roll over and let anyone do injustices to you at any time. Do you have a response to my actual point? Or are you unable to respond to the point I was making, so you'll just respond with an ad hominem attack, or a satirical gibe that is off point? I'd just like to hear what your claim at an injustice is if uni-care of some sort is passed? Remember, you have to attach some kind of personal injustice and establish how your taxes will increase if uni-care is passed, whereas they won't increase if uni-care fails. Remember, taxes increased significantly under GHWB and Clinton and no uni-care passed. Taxes significantly decreased under Reagan and GWB but spending DRASTICALLY was increased. So try to establish an argument correlating spending of any kind and the rate of taxation, then refine it describe how if uni-care is passed your personla taxes will increase.

That's the whole central theme here, one one side of the fence we have people who want to provide basics regardless of a person's income or standing, on the other side we have people who want the US to be exclusive.

It could be for a myriad of reasons. We have innate capacity, hard work element, birth order, wealth of parents, economy shifts, vocation shifts of society, etc. If aperson has 200 credits in Art, they probably won't amount to much and that could be predicted. If a person has 200 credits in vocationally applied skills and there is a legitimate reason why they have not succeeded that is exempt from a lot of criticisms. Sounds like deterrence theory, which is not proven as relaible. Absolutley, and I think I've illustrated that well; I agree. Yes, and as we see, the strongest are just a recession away from being weak, it's just that when tehy are strong they don't see that it could happen. Again, there is no connect between uni-care and taxes; NONE. If uni-care fails, taxes will rise by as much as those who advocate tax increases can. If uni-care passes - read the above statement.

Kind of explains the reliabilty of the news from the right. I think fox, Newsmax, etc gets it's news from scraps they find laying around in the street too.

Hard, tempered steel. Well, maybe a high carbon steel. Most of the time. But really, its more like some high quality cast iron. Well, maybe more like slag. Ok, ok, iron ore. Can we settle on dirt? I'll see your dirt and raise you a bucket of crap.

OMG, will that fit in my signature block?

Ditto, scares the shit out of the pets, fuckin idiot.

It's called misdirecction from the right, to focus not on the millions of fellow countrymen/women, but to pick out a simple argument and make that the primary issue. Go to court, watch the defense, they would take a rape victim and focus on her sexual promiscuity or the possibility of it as the main focus.

Agreed, so your claim that since you play by the rules and are therefore punnished is void. Intelligence is most predominantly genetic, not that success is all based upon intelligence, but should a person be afforded medical attention based upon their genetic properties? I have 200 college credits and am back in college now in mid-life, so my strategy sucked as well based on goals that didn't come to fruitiuon, so due to those decisions, backed with LOTS of legitimate hard work should I be denied helathcare because I tried legitimate avenues that failed? What about people born without the genetic properties like to be intelligent, but no retarded so tehy qualify for SS or Medicare, etc? So much of these cases aren't about effort, they're about failed attempts or in some cases the innate innability to achieve success. That's primarily for elderly, that's going to be there with or w/o uni-care or some variation of that. That's a whole different issue within healthcare, but that's not up for play here, we're talking about uni-care. But even if you wanted to consider it, as an abstract, if Medicare goes broke they will still find a way to fund it without trippling taxes. Again, the gov collects what they can and spends what they want, taxes will increase under most Democratic presidents and fall with most Republicans. Social benefits will incr with Dems, decre with Repubs. As I stated before, even if uni-care fails as with Clinton, taxes will rise, as with Clinton, so there is no connect between uni-care and Lawrocket's taxes; Medicare is not part of uni-care. No, point is my taxes and the 600B/yr military + 200B/yr in Iraq have no connection; the gov collects what they can and spends what they want. Iraq spending increased under Bush and my taxes fell; where's the connecct???? There is no connection between your taxes and my potential benefits. There is no connection between my taxes and the 600B annual military cost. Clinton and GHWB cut the military and my taxes increased; where's the connect? Quit playing the victim, esp since a guy in your occupation in most other indust countries would pay much more. Thought you would never ask. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html The bottom 80% holds 7.5% of all cash wealth in the US. DO we have to keep going? And the numbers are falling since our lovely last president took office, these numbers are from 2004, so it could be 5 or 6% by now. The bottom 80% holds 15.% of all wealth including assets, so even the number that benefits you the most doesn't really benefit you. A lot of these assets are real estate / pensions and you have to count it, but you can't liquidate it at will. So to answer you: BECAUSE THE POOR AND MC DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. Remember, people aren't taxed, money is - want to quit being taxed, quit being a lawyer billing $300 hr. Yep, with excepton like Eisenhower, Jackson and couple others. Of course to fault Hoover for pumping taxes his last year in office or to fault FDR for doing the same with the mess he inherited is ridiculous. You have to factor in the situation, but for a guy like GWB and his Republican Congress to SEVERELY cut taxes as he's going into war is pathetic. FDR raised taxes to heal the GD and for WWII expenditures and the GDP rose every year of his terms except 1937. Nope, the healthcare legislation has nothing to do with your taxes. Please, show me a connection. Clinton failed it and rasied taxes significantly, GWB spent more than virtually any president or any president and cut taxes. These are different agendas; taxes and spending. Quit playing the victim. And because you're able to I say we use you as a baseline and anyone below that; fuck em.

I consider it sociopathy to use someone else's pain to advance your legislative agenda. What if it's my pain? I haven't seen a doctor in 9 years and I have a myriad of things that now hamper me for which I need medical attention. I'm not hanging poor people out by the collar and waving them around for a political slogan, this is about my life. Also, what's the most sociopathic aspect is making basic medical needs a political decision. In civilized countries that's a moot point, here it's a business decision.

Then maybe you should look at the 'responsiveness' column of the WHO report - you know, the column that shows how well the medical community does it's job? Let's get the rest of the world using the same criteria for infant mortality and we'll talk. As for most of the rest of it, choosing to eat junk food and not exercise isn't a medical treatment decision. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care. 1. Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. 2. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light. 3. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. 4. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. 5. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. 6. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world. so we quit smokikng better but are fatter, so that's a bit of a wash with life expectancy. 7. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations. 8. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. So that explains it quite well. I would summarize it like the rest of the US, if you have a lot of money, it's the sebt country in the world, if you have no money, it's one of the worst places. It's much better to be poor in Canada or Western Europe. As for personal health, that's at the individual level, the government can't really be praised or punnished for that, just adjudged on their response medically.

One of the bigger issues is the 8th Amendment. How can a private contractor be held to US Constitutional standards? They can't, so I am against it. If there's government waste I would rather it be in the government in teh way of hiring too many employees, etc. If there is corporate waste then a small number of people end up with all the money. So on at least 2 fronts I'm against it. As well, parole means a customer lost, would private prisons do things to keep their customers?

What is diiferent from the Bush policy on the middle east and the current policy? Are you suggesting Obama is being light on the Taliban or Bin Laden to win a popularity contest? I think Obama inherited this mess, a mess he voted against from the beginning of his Senate days and he doesn't want to do anything hasty. Obama has his agenda, healthcare reform, he wants to get whatever resolve on that that he can before he touches anything else. Once that is done, probably late this year, then he will move on to taxes, the ME and other issues. It's hard to blame the guy for a war, a mess he voted against and now has in his lap.

So, you find it to be moral, then, because if two wrongs don't make a right, try three. In fact, lawrocket may have benefited by playing by society's rules. Let's punish him. I hear nothing from you that thinks it is wrong. Merely an excuse. And people who can't afford medical care are not playing by the rules? Again, show me the connect between socialized meds and Lawrocket's tax bill. If you can then I can show you my tax bill and all the things the US spends on that I disagree with. This is a huge society of at least 300M people, expenditures are going to be everywhere and it's likely that most we will disagree with. Taxes will increase regardless of this healthcare issue. The expiring tax cuts will expire and I wouldn't be surprised if additional taxes are added on the rich. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAXES AND OUTLAYS, other than the difference is what comprises the deficit/surplus. But healthcare reform can fail and your taxes can still increase, just as in the Clinton era; sound familiar? Quit playing the victim, if you became disabled these social svs you poo-poo would save your ass.

Yea, I was expecting that 5-way on my first jump or that 3 minute 40 second freefall. Seriously, what a loss, what a lucky guy, I bet if he could have a normal life and live to 80 he would choose what he had EVERY TIME.

Not only the HMO's, which are middlemen, but doctors making 300k and 500k shortly out of med school. RN's making 100k shortly out of nursing school; if you go to Europe or Canada doctors make < 1/2 what they do here. Also, we make specialists rather than doctors, many of them elective surgery specialists, which do nothing for humanity. Total inefficiency from the start to the end. Clean it up and there are enough savings there to allow everyone to have a doctor.

I consider it socioipathy to think of a person in pain and just because his countries laws aren't such that allow that poor person basic medical care he/she has to ignore that pain and go on, even if that pain is an early sign of cancer that could be snubbed early. Now he/she has to wait until they are near death before they can seek attention and then they are doomed for financial ruin for the future. I think most of the world has adopted that concept, which is why they provide basics. Canada doesn't provide dental care, just basic medical, no cosmetics, etc. So when you refer to morality, I think the health and well-being of your fellow countrymen and women doesn't enter a moral debate, were talking humanity here. So because the pesident used the term, "morality" doesn't mean that is the end of it, I don't think selective deprivation of medical care is a moral issue, I think it's an issue of humanity. But you cannot chose to allow them to be non-profit or not, so there is mutuality that defeats your point. Although other than an abstract, I can't see comparing the nation's health to a quack televangelist. No, just as you won't have the right to fund the 600B/yr military or the 200B/yr Iraq War. Nor do I have the power to dissalow the quack televangelists to operate under the guise of non-profit when many of those quacks earn >500K I'm sure. Intelligently, we need to evolve away from this concept that you are paying for X. We were established under a dbt, 75M after he Rev War, have been in debt forever, Jacson almost got us out, And to defy a world standard is imposition of corporate capitalist greed by policy. I think it's really awkward to act as if a person on the streets getting welfare somehow personally costs you a dime. Just as the 600B military or the 200B Iraq War isn't costing me a dime. This is debt that will never be paid back by anyone's proverbial grandkids. This McCainian generational robbery is a cliche, an old one at that. With that said, it needs to be controlled, just don't act as if there is even a remote connect between a 10-year, 1 trillion dollar healthcare reform and your taxes. Whether the HC Bill passes or fails, Obaam will raise taxes, probably even on top of the soon-expiring tax cuts. Not to be Biden, but 1 more time, TAXES ARE GOING TO INCREASE REGARDLESS OF THE HC BILL. Do I have the choice as whether or not to subsidize the court system (assuming I live in your state), the very place you earn your living? Nothing will change whether you practice more law or quit altogether or I live in your state or not. Remember: the gov collects whatever taxes they can and they spend whatever they want; other than bond measures there is no connect between taxes and spending, which is why our debt generally increases. So you say there should be a connect. Well, maybe the president you hate so much, Clinton, as well as GHWB raised taxes and at least Clinton spent just above the rate of inflation, a start to gte things under control. It's obvious you dislike Clinton so much, yet his fiscal responsibility was more inline with yours as a transition at least, whereas Reagan and GWB, presidents you probably dislike less than CLinton opposed your fiscal responsibility, or at least the one you advertise.