Can anyone break this argument?

[SmarterThanHick]

I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case. That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person. So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them? Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later. Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas. The same is true for healthcare. Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.

So we elect this policy of help first and ask questions later without exception, be it law enforcement, fire fighting, or healthcare. And who picks up the bill on all of these issues? Tax-payers. The only DIFFERENCE you're pointing out now is that it's being specifically pointed out instead of secretly coming out of your pocket from inflated insurance fees. Because yes, you were already paying for people to use the same ER you do, even though they don't pay.

But you see, we're not on a desert island. It's not person B paying person A.

 

[Liberty]

I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case. That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person. So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them? Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later. Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas. The same is true for healthcare. Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.

So we elect this policy of help first and ask questions later without exception, be it law enforcement, fire fighting, or healthcare. And who picks up the bill on all of these issues? Tax-payers. The only DIFFERENCE you're pointing out now is that it's being specifically pointed out instead of secretly coming out of your pocket from inflated insurance fees. Because yes, you were already paying for people to use the same ER you do, even though they don't pay.

But you see, we're not on a desert island. It's not person B paying person A.

fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.

States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

1. Are the poor, these non-taxpayers, not entitled to protection by law enforcement? Firefighters? Access to the courts? Public Education? Are they not entitled to use the highways, public libraries, public parks? The logical application of Wilkow's premise would say no, they are not entitled.

2. If the poor receive public funding for their healthcare, it is because the People, through their elected representatives, have decided to approve that funding. The democratic process that decides what does or doesn't become law, what is or isn't done with public money, is the process our Constitution established. It does however necessarily produce winners and losers. If there weren't enough votes for what you wanted, well, the democratic process, although it WORKED, didn't happen to work to your advantage in that case.

There is no system that can make everyone happy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.

States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.

Wilkow's argument in principle doesn't change just because it's a state government. That's absurd.

 

[Madeline]

I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case. That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person. So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them? Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later. Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas. The same is true for healthcare. Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.

So we elect this policy of help first and ask questions later without exception, be it law enforcement, fire fighting, or healthcare. And who picks up the bill on all of these issues? Tax-payers. The only DIFFERENCE you're pointing out now is that it's being specifically pointed out instead of secretly coming out of your pocket from inflated insurance fees. Because yes, you were already paying for people to use the same ER you do, even though they don't pay.

But you see, we're not on a desert island. It's not person B paying person A.

fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.

States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.

Well first, not all states can do it. Some are too poor or too overpopulated. Others have large rural areas it would never be possible to adequately serve. When you rule out the federal gov't paying the freight, you also rule out the revenues that level of government can offer...I'm not sure why you think state governments would be superior distributors of health care, Liberty, but the fact is they just cannot pay for it.

 

[midcan5]

[it's a philosophical argument meant to stimulate debate on the relationship between government and the fruits of an individual's labor. Ever hear of a platonic dialog? Something like that. Read the whole thread you might learn something.

In other words you have no reply? And if it were a Philo discussion other points of view would move the debate, but you seem stuck in a libertarian universe of self interest, or pejoratively greed.

Additional comments:

Being a member of a society is not a tit for tat formula. The person in need may have been a veteran either down on their luck, or in need of help. If injuries are serious no one denies the vet the care, so why in lesser cases should we. The person in need may just be in need, if an animal appears on TV desolate and in need, much help arrives, how it the human animal is not treated the same.

Supporting the society that provides stability has other agreements and potentialities that are neglected in the narcissistic premise of the OP. The shop owner is not alone in the world and may have family requiring help. The only direct transfer is in the rhetoric of example. Would the shop owner deny support for children in need of help even when the child's parents are having a hard go of it?

The shop owner may someday require support. Just as any business owner requires customers, a society requires a degree of fairness and shared responsibilities. The social infrastructure works as a whole to support the business and the customers regardless of their current position. The Golden Rule social premise operates here, even though I think contemporary religion in America has lost its soul.


"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered." Proverbs 21:13

 

[California Girl]

Lets role play a bit. (I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

That's an interesting perspective.

here's a different perspective;

there's this country....
in which many people say "we are the GREATEST country in the world!"
but.....
there aren't enough jobs for everyone
so many people, through no fault of their own, don't have jobs
many other people work at lowpaying jobs earning barely enough to stay warm and eat but NOT get proper health care

millions and millions of people suffering and dying because in that GREAT COUNTRY SOME people have BILLIONS of dollars while other people have trouble paying the rent...

is that REALLY the greatest country in the world?

and what about the future;
more and more jobs (even in the military) being automated, computerized and turned over to robots...

meaning even FEWER jobs for people....
(maybe someday YOU won't have a job because a robot will be doing it and the CEO of your corporation can get EVEN RICHER! won't that be nice? and you, of course, won't complain, i'm sure)

of course...
people who don't work because there are no jobs because wealthy people would rather keep ALL THE MONEY and use robots and computers to do as much work as possible are OBVIOUSLY deadbeats and deserve to just die on the streets....

in the greatest country in the world.....

Anyone who thinks they would be better off in another country, is welcome to leave.

 

[saveliberty]

It is a pursuit of happiness, life and liberty. That means opportunity, not a guarantee. A goal to WORK for, not be handed.

rikules, we give away so much of our taxes to other nations. I guess when you do that, it is the government who is allowing those people to go hungry. Why is it they value other nation's people more than our own?

 

[Twofox]

I think you miss the point completely....

if in the given scenario it is deemed unfair for B to have to give of his own for the benefit of A then, in my scenario I would ask "why should single people pay more into a system that benefits married people with children" (who pay LESS because of tax breaks for their families)?

or why should people who don't need much medical care because they are responsible for their own health and diets have to pay for people who refuse to take care of their own health and diets?

let's be REALLY fair and give NO tax breaks for families
That merely unfairly punishes single people
and let's deny people B with unhealthy life styles who stuffed themselves with fatty foods and refused to diet or exercise the opportunity to drain insurance or medicare or medicaid and make them pay for their own medical expenses so that C doesn't have to

and now I want to know why you think B giving for A's benefit is BAD (or fiscal slavery of some kind) but think that it's fine for C to have to pay MORE for B's benefit

If B is forced into contract against his will, that is slavery. B voluntarily donating to charity to help A is a good thing.

Remember, B has money because he runs a business (as opposed to inheriting it, etc.). B has customers, suppliers, etc. This is one reason B chooses to live among his neighbors, one of who is A.

In choosing to live there and in profiting from the commerce of/with his neighbors, B runs up a debt to them. We call this debt "taxes". How high that debt should be is debatable, but IMO -- and I freely admit, this is a personal opinion -- B is best served and in fact does owe for some portion of the cost of health care of some sort for A whilst A is unable to pay those costs alone.

We keep talking about how much we should "take" from B...but what about what we "take" from A for B's benefit? What about the government resources dedicated to facilitating B's business that could otherwise have been dedicated to A's well-being? As a member of the community, doesn't A have some right to a portion of the government's largess, just as B does?

The problem with that scenario is that B is paying taxes while A is not. It depends on if A is legitmately unable to pay taxes or is simply leaching off of society. We need safety nets, but not for those who wish to leach off of society.

Besides, B running a business doesn't mean much. He could be making just enough to survive on while running his business. Believe it or not, there are business owners who live below the poverty line.

 

[Madeline]

If B runs his business at or below the break-even point, he'll pay no income taxes. A pays taxes on his purchases and on other transactions -- no adult in America is a "non-taxpayer", although many pay no income tax.

But this is not quite my point. A may be one of B's customers, or potential customers. Is B better off if A and all like him die off? Certainly not. Has B "earned" all his gross receipts? Certainly not...some portion of them are attributable to the orderly society he does business in, an order partially attributable to A and others like him. An order enforced by government, which B must help to fund.

This libertarian belief that we "steal" from one another when we mutually agree to pay for some government services is bizarre-o. It's akin to complaining we "steal" when we buy fire insurance, especially if it is our home that burns.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.

States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.

While your point regarding what's written on various pieces of paper is accurate, please understand that I really don't care about much outside the concept. The title of the thread is to break the argument, which I did. It did not request I do so within the constraints of your interpretation of documents, or how you believe government ought to be run.

The problem with that scenario is that B is paying taxes while A is not. It depends on if A is legitmately unable to pay taxes or is simply leaching off of society. We need safety nets, but not for those who wish to leach off of society.

I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that. The problem however is how to respond, GIVEN both possibilities. We can err on the side of stinginess to ensure no one leaches, or err on the side of giving, allowing many people healthcare who need it and are legit, at the cost of allowing some leaches.

 

[Chris]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

Modern conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

Every other industrialized country has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

 

[Madeline]

I think the problem with your argument is that you're boiling this scenario down to a desert island approach, which simply isn't the case. That's like saying Person B is paying for person A's local firehouse, or police, and so therefore these services shouldn't be offered to that person. So why don't we just have a system where you only have access to police/fire/other community resources if you specifically pay for them? Because in those instances of emergency, the better strategy is to help first and ask questions later. Because a fire or crime in one specific area is bad for all the surrounding areas. The same is true for healthcare. Sure, a lot of it comes down to diabetes and smoking, but infectious disease runs rampant in underserved communities, and spreads from there.

So we elect this policy of help first and ask questions later without exception, be it law enforcement, fire fighting, or healthcare. And who picks up the bill on all of these issues? Tax-payers. The only DIFFERENCE you're pointing out now is that it's being specifically pointed out instead of secretly coming out of your pocket from inflated insurance fees. Because yes, you were already paying for people to use the same ER you do, even though they don't pay.

But you see, we're not on a desert island. It's not person B paying person A.

fire house, etc are all local community entities and are not directly controlled by the federal government. You must understand the vast distinction between state/local and federal powers as enumerated in the constitution.

States can do it, that's fine. The federal government cannot. Not my choice, that was the founders decision. If you want to legally amend the constitution to say that government shall make no law abridging the individual's right to health care and aid, fine. But do not undermine the constitution. That is my gripe.

Well first, this has nothing to do with the social contract you wanted discussed in your Op. Beyond that, it is not how the Gang of Nine has interpreted the constitution. It's interesting and fun to discuss whether the Supremes have gotten it right, but it's not quite accurate to say "that is not constitutional" when they have the only power to decide the question, and have found that it is.

 

[sitarro]

This discussion is adorable, obviously none involved have ever worked for a very large company. Humans lie, cheat, break rules and do whatever they can to get over on each other. If a company has been around for very long they will have rules that make all accountable because there are those that refuse to be. That is what's so funny about the simpletons that want to blame everything on evil corporations........ try looking around you, look at yourselves, what do you do that you justify because it's some big corporation that deserves to be gotten over on. What bullshit story have you told an insurance company because what they don't know, it's their fault, it's your right to take advantage of them because they are in business to take advantage of you?! That is the reality of living on this planet. Those that try to do the right thing, do their job correctly, care about helping others are taken advantage of by those that want to get by with the least amount of effort.
Those that have been brainwashed into thinking that only the rich take advantage are naive imbeciles that walk around with blinders on.
I have known people that were getting numerous checks from Medicare and assorted other government welfare because they were supposedly injured and couldn't work. Those same people could stand all day if a keg and joints were available yet couldn't qualify for work where they might have to be on their feet. I knew a family very well in Denver, the guy had been hit by a motorcyclist when he, in a drunken stupor, stepped into the road. He lived off of various programs the government provided, he and his wife were experts at this. She would work for a month and then stop for a year. They had 5 televisions, at least that many stereo systems, 3 kids, always had beer and pot, would eat at McDonalds constantly, all were very overweight and drove a car without insurance.......... they knew exactly how to work the system....... that is reality.
Giving away services and money without accountability is foolish and yet that is exactly what government does with your tax dollars. It breeds generation upon generation of freeloaders which makes it harder for the person that is truly down on their luck and could actually use some help. If, we can't force drug tests on those that want money for nothing....... if we can't force a 16 year old, that wants us to pay for her kid, to have birth control implanted into her system....... if we can't enforce the abuse of food stamps and other social service monies, then the system will never work.
The ACLU will always fight the enforcement....... there is no solution. But, by all means, keep discussing it like there is a solution......... good mental masturbation for you guys.

 

[saveliberty]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

Modern conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

Every other industrialized country has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

Conservatism is individualism and liberty over government control.

Over half of those industrial nations are socialist. A small price to pay for independence. Note their systems are crumbling. It is a foolish person who follows the path of failure.

 

[jillian]

Conservatism is individualism and liberty over government control.

Over half of those industrial nations are socialist. A small price to pay for independence. Note their systems are crumbling. It is a foolish person who follows the path of failure.

i'd argue with your definition.

conservatism is a desire to keep things as they are and a resistance to change.

liberalism is a desire to move forward.

both are needed for society to operate properly and successfully.

neither conservatism nor liberalism is an economic system, so confusing one with capitalism and the other with socialism is inappropriate, imo.

what societies are you referring to, btw? i'd think the ideal society has both capitalistic and socialistic aspects.

 

[saveliberty]

Conservatism is individualism and liberty over government control.

Over half of those industrial nations are socialist. A small price to pay for independence. Note their systems are crumbling. It is a foolish person who follows the path of failure.

i'd argue with your definition.

conservatism is a desire to keep things as they are and a resistance to change.

liberalism is a desire to move forward.

both are needed for society to operate properly and successfully.

neither conservatism nor liberalism is an economic system, so confusing one with capitalism and the other with socialism is inappropriate, imo.

what societies are you referring to, btw? i'd think the ideal society has both capitalistic and socialistic aspects.

I switched paragraphs. Which has traditionally meant a change in subject or point. I did not associate either with an economic system. The US has both and clearly is not ideal.

 

[jillian]

Conservatism is individualism and liberty over government control.

Over half of those industrial nations are socialist. A small price to pay for independence. Note their systems are crumbling. It is a foolish person who follows the path of failure.

i'd argue with your definition.

conservatism is a desire to keep things as they are and a resistance to change.

liberalism is a desire to move forward.

both are needed for society to operate properly and successfully.

neither conservatism nor liberalism is an economic system, so confusing one with capitalism and the other with socialism is inappropriate, imo.

what societies are you referring to, btw? i'd think the ideal society has both capitalistic and socialistic aspects.

I switched paragraphs. Which has traditionally meant a change in subject or point. I did not associate either with an economic system. The US has both and clearly is not ideal.

We are the only civilized nation in the world not to assure that each of its citizens has health care.

You're right. We aren't ideal.

What aspects of our society do you believe are socialist?

 

[saveliberty]

i'd argue with your definition.

conservatism is a desire to keep things as they are and a resistance to change.

liberalism is a desire to move forward.

both are needed for society to operate properly and successfully.

neither conservatism nor liberalism is an economic system, so confusing one with capitalism and the other with socialism is inappropriate, imo.

what societies are you referring to, btw? i'd think the ideal society has both capitalistic and socialistic aspects.

I switched paragraphs. Which has traditionally meant a change in subject or point. I did not associate either with an economic system. The US has both and clearly is not ideal.

We are the only civilized nation in the world not to assure that each of its citizens has health care.

You're right. We aren't ideal.

What aspects of our society do you believe are socialist?

Public education. Resulting in reduced standards and performance of students.

Public Assistance. Allowing family structure to deteriorate at an alarming rate.

Unemployment Insurance. What once was a short term safety net is now a life style.

Social Security. A system intended as a supplement has become most people's primary source. Also, it is mandatory which is wrong.

Healthcare. It has been set up to fail by the current adminstration. Next stop universal health care.

 

[jillian]

Public education. Resulting in reduced standards and performance of students.

Public Assistance. Allowing family structure to deteriorate at an alarming rate.

Unemployment Insurance. What once was a short term safety net is now a life style.

Social Security. A system intended as a supplement has become most people's primary source. Also, it is mandatory which is wrong.

Healthcare. It has been set up to fail by the current adminstration. Next stop universal health care.

education is socialistic? i suppose we could be like saudi arabia and our children can be 'taught' in madrassas. education should not be privatized so that only the wealthy have access to it.

public assistance? that was largely reformed a long time ago and is a fairly small part of our our budget. and the largest segment of people on welfare are single white mothers. would you suggest they and their children starve to death?

The interesting thing about that is the same people who oppose helping single mothers also oppose sex education and abortion.

unemployment insurance? i really can't respond to that since i think cutting off people at the height of a bad job market is ill-considered and mean-spirited. I'm sorry you've bought into the extremists' assertion that people are choosing to live off of unemployment insurance.

health care? my arguments at the beginning of this thread outline my opinions on that issue.

ultimately, i'd rather not live in the type of society you describe. it sounds like a banana republic where i will need armed guards in front of my home.