Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That is exactly what he, and you, meant. Anytime you would prefer to have government control aspects of your life that you would otherwise be forced to deal with, you are seeking to have some higher authority protect you from yourself. Personally- I dont need that.
No safety net:
I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.
Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.
Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.
I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.
Discuss.
I just think a country as great and as wealthy as ours should take care of the least of us
What kind of country do we want to be?
Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?
That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.
We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?
Shouldn't we strive for the best?
Define what you mean by "best?"
What he means is, a man should not have to work to pay for the food he feeds his children, the house in which they reside, or the health care they receive. The "best" country- to a lefty like right-winger- is one that recognizes food, housing, and health care as fundamental rights for the government to hand out. Who cares if poor decision-making lead someone to be hungry, homeless, and in bad health? We must protect people from themselves....
at least you are unabashed in your desire to see government control the health insurance industry
Basic health insurance should not be an "industry". It should not be a for-profit endeavor. Besides, where did I imply that I want government to take over the health insurance industry?
And we do..... this nonsense being discussed seeks to create many more of "the least of us" from the middle class.
That is exactly what he, and you, meant. Anytime you would prefer to have government control aspects of your life that you would otherwise be forced to deal with, you are seeking to have some higher authority protect you from yourself. Personally- I dont need that.
Um, no it isn't. Again, you have a problem understanding what you read and not just injecting your own extremist opinions into it. I don't ask the government for anything. Never have. Ever. I work and always have worked. I just think a country as great and as wealthy as ours should take care of the least of us. I'd rather my money go toward that than the corrupt MIC that is in bed with multinationals and robbing us taxpayers blind...
EVERY human being in this country deserves a basic level of sustenance .
No safety net:
Looks more like "no garbage collection"
That is exactly where a public option leads.
Define what you mean by "best?"
What he means is, a man should not have to work to pay for the food he feeds his children, the house in which they reside, or the health care they receive. The "best" country- to a lefty like right-winger- is one that recognizes food, housing, and health care as fundamental rights for the government to hand out. Who cares if poor decision-making lead someone to be hungry, homeless, and in bad health? We must protect people from themselves....
Yes, that is precisely what I believe.
I don't care if you are the meanest and laziest son of a bitch that god ever created. No matter how badly you screwed up your life, I don't think the punishment should be death and starvation for you or your family.
I don't care if it is three hots and a cot as well as basic healthcare.
EVERY human being in this country deserves a basic level of sustenance .
We dont need a public option for that.
We dont need a public option for that.
Apparently, we do. The "market" sure isn't doing anything to make it accessible. Why would they? They make a killing. Pun intended.
I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.
Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.
Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.
I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.
Discuss.
I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.
Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.
Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.
I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.
Discuss.
Personal responsibility has precious little to do with the healthcare crisis in the US. People who have worked all of their lives are finding that their employers are not providing any healthcare benefits or have reduced their benefits and suddenly the employees have to pay well over $1,000 a month to cover their family's basic healthcare needs.
If it hasn't happened to you yet, consider yourself blessed. There are many working people with a high sense of personal responsibility that are facing problems providing health insurance for their families simply because of the greed of the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies. Interesting that you don't feel they should take any responsibility for the role they play in creating this crisis.
I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.
Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.
Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.
I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.
Discuss.
Personal responsibility has precious little to do with the healthcare crisis in the US. People who have worked all of their lives are finding that their employers are not providing any healthcare benefits or have reduced their benefits and suddenly the employees have to pay well over $1,000 a month to cover their family's basic healthcare needs.
If it hasn't happened to you yet, consider yourself blessed. There are many working people with a high sense of personal responsibility that are facing problems providing health insurance for their families simply because of the greed of the insurers and the pharmaceutical companies. Interesting that you don't feel they should take any responsibility for the role they play in creating this crisis.
There is no health care crisis. Which is not to say there is not a need for some changes. The problem is, the response of the left is typical..... total transformation over thoughtful change.
The "market" isn't what provides basic health care for everybody, darlin. Nobody is denied basic health care.
What he means is, a man should not have to work to pay for the food he feeds his children, the house in which they reside, or the health care they receive. The "best" country- to a lefty like right-winger- is one that recognizes food, housing, and health care as fundamental rights for the government to hand out. Who cares if poor decision-making lead someone to be hungry, homeless, and in bad health? We must protect people from themselves....
Yes, that is precisely what I believe.
I don't care if you are the meanest and laziest son of a bitch that god ever created. No matter how badly you screwed up your life, I don't think the punishment should be death and starvation for you or your family.
I don't care if it is three hots and a cot as well as basic healthcare.
EVERY human being in this country deserves a basic level of sustenance .
Basic healthcare is already guaranteed. You mean to say health insurance. And children are already protected- which is why so few ever starve. I also agree that every American deserves a basic level of sustenance. And they already receive it.
