Posts: 1,145
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 12:07 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm pretty sure that public safety is the responsibility of members of the community to pay for. I have a vested interest in making sure that there's law and order in my community. In fact, I'd say that public safety is priority number one for local government.
Forgive me for not giving a rats azz if the person down the street doesn't have healthcare when he catches a cold.
Anymore ridiculous arguments regarding this topic, or did that pretty much cover it?
I'm pretty sure that public safety includes preventing the spread of disease. Also death.
Do you give a rats ass if the person down the street catches tuberculosis? How about if the person down the street has treatable cancer? Is it okay for him to die as long as he wasn't shot in a parking lot by some gangster? You act as though the idea of violence in the streets is awful, but seem entirely uninterested if anyone drops dead from anything other than being the victim of a crime. Care to explain this inconsistency?
Posts: 791
Threads: 7
Reputation:
830
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 07:10 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I'm pretty sure that public safety includes preventing the spread of disease. Also death.
Do you give a rats ass if the person down the street catches tuberculosis? How about if the person down the street has treatable cancer? Is it okay for him to die as long as he wasn't shot in a parking lot by some gangster? You act as though the idea of violence in the streets is awful, but seem entirely uninterested if anyone drops dead from anything other than being the victim of a crime. Care to explain this inconsistency?
What inconsistency?
I have a vested interest in the public safety in my community. Drug dealers, breaking and entering, gun violence, etc. all decrease property values and represent a possible threat to my family.
I have no vested interest whatsoever in the health and well-being of other people that I am an no way, shape, or form financially responsible for. I am responsible for my family, and so I can also take measures to ensure our health and well-being. We eat sensibly, exercise, and make other choices that I have no control over anyone outside of my family, nor should I.
Posts: 1,145
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 09:13 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What inconsistency?
I have a vested interest in the public safety in my community. Drug dealers, breaking and entering, gun violence, etc. all decrease property values and represent a possible threat to my family.
I have no vested interest whatsoever in the health and well-being of other people that I am an no way, shape, or form financially responsible for. I am responsible for my family, and so I can also take measures to ensure our health and well-being. We eat sensibly, exercise, and make other choices that I have no control over anyone outside of my family, nor should I.
And the police privatization supporter says: "I have no vested interest whatsoever in the health and well-being of other people that I am in no way, shape, or form financially responsible for. I am responsible for my family, and so I take measures to ensure our health and well-being. We lock our doors, have a home security system, pay for the best private police force money can buy and make other choices that I have no control over anyone outside of my family, nor should I."
And your counterargument would be, I'm sure, "Well that's just RIDICULOUS!!!
And the other guy goes, "Get your own police! Stop freeloading off the government and relying on the people who worked hard enough to afford the best security money can buy to keep you and your family safe! Be personally responsible!"
And your counterargument would be, I'm sure, "Well that's just RIDICULOUS!!!"
P.S. you forgot to mention the fact that infectious disease in your community also represents "a possible threat to your family".
P.P.S. lol @ you won't get cancer as long as you exercise and eat healthy.
Posts: 791
Threads: 7
Reputation:
830
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 09:41 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And the police privatization supporter says: "I have no vested interest whatsoever in the health and well-being of other people that I am in no way, shape, or form financially responsible for. I am responsible for my family, and so I take measures to ensure our health and well-being. We lock our doors, have a home security system, pay for the best private police force money can buy and make other choices that I have no control over anyone outside of my family, nor should I."
And your counterargument would be, I'm sure, "Well that's just RIDICULOUS!!!
And the other guy goes, "Get your own police! Stop freeloading off the government and relying on the people who worked hard enough to afford the best security money can buy to keep you and your family safe! Be personally responsible!"
And your counterargument would be, I'm sure, "Well that's just RIDICULOUS!!!"
P.S. you forgot to mention the fact that infectious disease in your community also represents "a possible threat to your family".
P.P.S. lol @ you won't get cancer as long as you exercise and eat healthy.
For starters, please refrain from adding things to my quotes and arguing against those.
Second, LOL@ you and your cancer strawman.
Third, what infectious diseases are in my community that immunization shots and medical care that my family and I have should I be worried about?
Fourth, I'm not freeloading off of the government. I pay federal, state, county, and local taxes as well as property taxes to cover the costs of law enforcement.
Posts: 1,145
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 09:48 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: For starters, please refrain from adding things to my quotes and arguing against those.
Second, LOL@ you and your cancer strawman.
Third, what infectious diseases are in my community that immunization shots and medical care that my family and I have should I be worried about?
Fourth, I'm not freeloading off of the government. I pay federal, state, county, and local taxes as well as property taxes to cover the costs of law enforcement.
No. It's a great method of illustrating your inconsistency, the point which you continue to spectacularly fail to understand.
Second, uninsured people with cancer is a strawman? 
Third, feel free to utilize Google and read the extensive lists of infectious diseases for which there are no licensed vaccinations; I'm sure you're more than capable.
Fourth, it appears to have escaped you that should healthcare be nationalized, it would also be paid for by federal, state, county, local and property taxes by you, me and all other taxpayers. Yet I get the nagging feeling you would call anyone in favor of national healthcare a "collectivist".
Posts: 2,750
Threads: 33
Reputation:
7840
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 09:41 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And the police privatization supporter says: "I have no vested interest whatsoever in the health and well-being of other people that I am in no way, shape, or form financially responsible for. I am responsible for my family, and so I take measures to ensure our health and well-being. We lock our doors, have a home security system, pay for the best private police force money can buy and make other choices that I have no control over anyone outside of my family, nor should I."
And your counterargument would be, I'm sure, "Well that's just RIDICULOUS!!!
And the other guy goes, "Get your own police! Stop freeloading off the government and relying on the people who worked hard enough to afford the best security money can buy to keep you and your family safe! Be personally responsible!"
And your counterargument would be, I'm sure, "Well that's just RIDICULOUS!!!"
P.S. you forgot to mention the fact that infectious disease in your community also represents "a possible threat to your family".
P.P.S. lol @ you won't get cancer as long as you exercise and eat healthy.
Look man...I rarely agree with Mr. Kahkies but damn dude...did you forget to tak a pill or something. Almost none of that makes sense to me at all. How can someone that pays into the tax system be freeloading off of it? That's like going ot the grocery store purchasing food then being told you are freeloading off the grocery store...WUT?
![[Image: m6moCD1.png]](http://i.imgur.com/m6moCD1.png)
Posts: 1,145
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 10:01 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Look man...I rarely agree with Mr. Kahkies but damn dude...did you forget to tak a pill or something. Almost none of that makes sense to me at all. How can someone that pays into the tax system be freeloading off of it? That's like going ot the grocery store purchasing food then being told you are freeloading off the grocery store...WUT?
I agree that taxpayers are not freeloading and that therefore I would not be freeloading under nationalized healthcare.
Posts: 791
Threads: 7
Reputation:
830
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 10:05 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I agree that taxpayers are not freeloading and that therefore I would not be freeloading under nationalized healthcare.
So what's the difference between me paying for my healthcare directly or paying for it through taxes?
Ohhhhhhh, some people don't pay taxes, right? Gotta pay for those that don't work/pay taxes.
Yeah....sounds like collectivism to me.
Posts: 2,750
Threads: 33
Reputation:
7840
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 10:09 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So what's the difference between me paying for my healthcare directly or paying for it through taxes?
Ohhhhhhh, some people don't pay taxes, right? Gotta pay for those that don't work/pay taxes.
Yeah....sounds like collectivism to me.
You do realize that we already pay for those without healthcare?
Posts: 1,145
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 10:09 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So what's the difference between me paying for my healthcare directly or paying for it through taxes?
Ohhhhhhh, some people don't pay taxes, right? Gotta pay for those that don't work/pay taxes.
Yeah....sounds like collectivism to me.
Should someone who doesn't pay taxes be denied police services?
BTW, there's a lot better books out there than the shit Ayn Rand wrote. You should check some of them out sometime.
Posts: 791
Threads: 7
Reputation:
830
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 10:13 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You do realize that we already pay for those without healthcare?
So what's the purpose of nationalizing it then?
I don't need government to take care of my healthcare needs, and in fact would prefer that they didn't.
People point to countries with these programs and some may work, but none of them have the population or land mass that we do. Others have plans that ration care. Neither of these ideas are good.
Posts: 791
Threads: 7
Reputation:
830
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 10:18 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Should someone who doesn't pay taxes be denied police services?
BTW, there's a lot better books out there than the shit Ayn Rand wrote. You should check some of them out sometime.
No, they shouldn't be denied police services.
I've never read Ayn Rand's books. Could you focus on the things that I've written personally and stop interjecting the thoughts of others into our conversation?
Posts: 2,750
Threads: 33
Reputation:
7840
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 02:08 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So what's the purpose of nationalizing it then?
I don't need government to take care of my healthcare needs, and in fact would prefer that they didn't.
People point to countries with these programs and some may work, but none of them have the population or land mass that we do. Others have plans that ration care. Neither of these ideas are good.
pay less.
You have your very strong opinions on things, and easily dismiss examples that are in direct opposition to these very strong opinions. Let that sink in.
Posts: 791
Threads: 7
Reputation:
830
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 02:12 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: pay less.
You have your very strong opinions on things, and easily dismiss examples that are in direct opposition to these very strong opinions. Let that sink in.
What evidence is there that we'd be paying less?
How can anyone guarantee that the quality of care will not be impacted?
I have very strong opinions on things because we're always sold a bill of goods about how great government largess will be, and then find that it costs way more than they thought, it's full of corruption and fraud, and that the answer to solving the problem is to further expand government and throw more money at the problem.
Posts: 2,750
Threads: 33
Reputation:
7840
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 02:18 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What evidence is there that we'd be paying less?
How can anyone guarantee that the quality of care will not be impacted?
I have very strong opinions on things because we're always sold a bill of goods about how great government largess will be, and then find that it costs way more than they thought, it's full of corruption and fraud, and that the answer to solving the problem is to further expand government and throw more money at the problem.
What evidence is there that we wouldn't...What we do know is that a very large portion of our health care cost goes to those without health care. How can anyone guarantee that the quality of care would be impacted?
You didn't let it sink in. I'm not sure why you think the private sector isn't equally rife with corruption and fraud. I'm even more confused that you don't realize that most if not all of the corruption and fraud in the government is spurred by the private sector. Maybe the issue is not health care but how we allow the private sector to influence the public sector.
Posts: 1,694
Threads: 35
Reputation:
4699
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnnati
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 02:30 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: What evidence is there that we wouldn't...What we do know is that a very large portion of our health care cost goes to those without health care. How can anyone guarantee that the quality of care would be impacted?
You didn't let it sink in. I'm not sure why you think the private sector isn't equally rife with corruption and fraud. I'm even more confused that you don't realize that most if not all of the corruption and fraud in the government is spurred by the private sector. Maybe the issue is not health care but how we allow the private sector to influence the public sector.
So you're saying that the private sector can be just as corrupt as the government, if not more so?
Hmmm....
Posts: 2,750
Threads: 33
Reputation:
7840
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 02:37 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: So you're saying that the private sector can be just as corrupt as the government, if not more so?
Hmmm....
I know, I know...But you are going to have to let that sink in. I mean, everyone in government was at one time or another a part of the private sector and or will be returning to it shortly.
Posts: 1,694
Threads: 35
Reputation:
4699
Joined: May 2015
Location: Cincinnnati
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 02:38 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I know, I know...But you are going to have to let that sink in. I mean, everyone in government was at one time or another a part of the private sector and or will be returning to it shortly.
You're getting deep man.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 10:13 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You do realize that we already pay for those without healthcare?
No they don't. That is the biggest problem in getting them to understand. In this country people get emergency medical care even if they don't have insurance or money. Those services are currently absorbed by the rest of the money paid by people who do have money or health insurance.
A government run program should be cheaper because the health insurance industry is making billions of dollars a year. The government may not be as efficient as a private company, but it should still be able to cover costs at a lower level as a non profit.
Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are against it because they fear the government would have too much leverage with close to a monopoly on the health care market. I can understand their apprehension, but I don't see the government stepping on too many of the big money toes that feed it with tax revenue. So the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry would be the only real victim. They still hold enough clout to get us the ACA instead of a government ran program.
Posts: 791
Threads: 7
Reputation:
830
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(08-27-2015, 02:38 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I know, I know...But you are going to have to let that sink in. I mean, everyone in government was at one time or another a part of the private sector and or will be returning to it shortly.
What does that have to do with the price of rice?
A publicly-traded corporation has stockholders and a board of directors to answer to, not to mention private citizens.
Government has none of this, outside of voters, who by and large either shrug their shoulders at failed programs or wasteful spending because "that's just the way it goes", or they falsely state that there's every bit as much fraud and corruption in the private sector.
|
