Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...

The question is whether it's the job of government to make us healthier or better educated, or better at competing in the market place. I adamantly don't want government involved in those kinds of projects. I want a government that protects our freedom to pursue the levels of health, education and competitiveness that we want.

It has historically been the government's job to invade other sovereign nations on false pretexts, deregulate the banks (yes, I know it happened on Bill Clinton's watch...just to preempt that little distraction) so that they created the recession of '08, and allow corporations to send American manufacturing jobs overseas.

Arguably "invading Iraq under the pretext that it was a threat to the U.S." falls under Article 1, Section 8, but where are the latter two mentioned?

Again, I'd argue that "promote the general welfare" covers such things as stopping the polio epidemic in the 1950s, for example.

The best way to weaken a nation and hasten its demise is through illness and ignorance. The very fact that some people see the word "socialist" and don't even understand that it has more than one meaning is indicative of the latter and, quite possibly, an aspect of the former.

 

[westwall]

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

We are in agreement here. In fact there is a program out our local CC that allows high schooler's, while still in high school, to attend college classes. The high achievers are normally not a problem. It is the middle of the road kids that need help. Currently the CC system does very little other than glad handing to help them. If they are a poor student the CC system bends over backwards to help them when to be honest they shouldn't even be there.

My wife teaches occasionally at the CC and MOST of the students are poor. To the point where getting them to do a single assignment can be difficult. They are paid to attend but they truly don't care about succeeding. Those kids should be elsewhere instead of wasting valuable resources.

That's one of the things I hate about teaching in community college is there are always those that are going to fail because they don't apply themselves or just don't care. However, most of the classes I have taught, they're in the minority.

I think people are far too critical of the success rate of programs that address the needs of the poor. To a social scientist, programs with a success rate of 40% are often considered successful. Few people seem to realize just how hard it is too work with people that lived most of their lives in poverty, have about zero self esteem, and have failed so many times that they have just given up.

Here's where I disagree with you. The success rate is extremely important. Merely throwing money at a program with no care as to how effective it is is what leads to multiple programs doing the same thing equally ineffectively. Money needs to be spent far more wisely than it currently is. That is a fact. Re-inventing the wheel over and over helps no one, and in fact harms everyone.

 

[dblack]

... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...

The question is whether it's the job of government to make us healthier or better educated, or better at competing in the market place. I adamantly don't want government involved in those kinds of projects. I want a government that protects our freedom to pursue the levels of health, education and competitiveness that we want.

It has historically been the government's job to invade other sovereign nations on false pretexts, deregulate the banks (yes, I know it happened on Bill Clinton's watch...just to preempt that little distraction) so that they created the recession of '08, and allow corporations to send American manufacturing jobs overseas.

Arguably "invading Iraq under the pretext that it was a threat to the U.S." falls under Article 1, Section 8, but where are the latter two mentioned?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my point.

Again, I'd argue that "promote the general welfare" covers such things as stopping the polio epidemic in the 1950s, for example.

Do you think that government should be used to provide us with things like education and healthcare, or the rest of life's necessities? I don't. Here's why:

The principle means of government is coercion. We use government to force people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do. That's what makes it different than all other social institutions.

I can't, in good conscience, justify using government force to provide me with things I want or need unless I'd be willing to use force to get them myself. I would, for example, be willing to use violent force to protect myself, or someone else, who was being attacked by a mugger. But I wouldn't be willing to use violence to get an education. Or healthcare. It would be wrong for me to that as an individual, and it's just as wrong for government to do it on my behalf.

 

[Arianrhod]

... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...

The question is whether it's the job of government to make us healthier or better educated, or better at competing in the market place. I adamantly don't want government involved in those kinds of projects. I want a government that protects our freedom to pursue the levels of health, education and competitiveness that we want.

It has historically been the government's job to invade other sovereign nations on false pretexts, deregulate the banks (yes, I know it happened on Bill Clinton's watch...just to preempt that little distraction) so that they created the recession of '08, and allow corporations to send American manufacturing jobs overseas.

Arguably "invading Iraq under the pretext that it was a threat to the U.S." falls under Article 1, Section 8, but where are the latter two mentioned?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my point.

I was asking whether manipulating the law to benefit bankers and corporations instead of working Americans was covered in the Constitution. Yes, it's a rhetorical question, but the strict constructionists love to haul out the Constitution whether it's appropriate to the conversation or not.

Again, I'd argue that "promote the general welfare" covers such things as stopping the polio epidemic in the 1950s, for example.

Do you think that government should be used to provide us with things like education and healthcare, or the rest of life's necessities? I don't. Here's why:

The principle means of government is coercion. We use government to force people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do. That's what makes it different than all other social institutions.

Um, yeah, like those free polio vaccinations in the 1950s, without which many people alive today would never exist because their parents died or suffered irreparable disability from polio.

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

 

[dblack]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

 

[Arianrhod]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

 

[dblack]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

 

[Arianrhod]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

 

[dblack]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

 

[Conservative65]

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

If they can't do the level of work that they should do in high school, they don't belong in college.

The problem with what you say is that many on the left want the rest of us to invest in something you say involves screw ups.

Unless, you really want to see the welfare state grow, then you should be in favor of providing education for those with lower abilities and aspirations that are in low skilled jobs.

I've come to the conclusion that they have a lowered ability to understand that education is an investment. As one generation of professionals ages out and retires, who's going to replace them? They don't think of things like that.

I think most young people in community college certificate and para-professional programs see their education as a stepping stone to making more money. Many of these students are paying little or nothing. Student's pursuing a 4 year degree pay more money out of pocket and through college loans and I think they do look upon their education as an investment.

Two reasons why the "not with my tax dollars!!!11!" group is resistant to tuition-free education at state universities (which, BTW, is the way it used to be in the 1950s they ordinarily tout so highly). Two-year certificate kids might compete with their own kids for jobs, and four-year kids getting "free stuff" is anathema.

1) What you'll need to show me is where the federal government offset that tuition free education or was it done at the state level only. Much like Romneycare was in Massachusetts, while I don't agree with the government sticking it's nose in healthcare, if Massachusetts chose to do that in Massachusetts, the Constitution gave them the authority they needed under the 10th Amendment. That it only applied within Massachusetts boundaries, again while not my cup of tea, was their prerogative.

2) That someone expects STATE college tuition to be funded by FEDERAL tax dollars, in part of whole, makes them exactly what you labeled them. If a particular STATE wants to do it with funds solely from their STATE, see #1 above.

 

[Arianrhod]

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

Okay, now you've lost me. The PPACA doesn't coerce doctors into doing anything.

 

[Conservative65]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified". Forcing one group to provide anything to another group is never justified. When people who argue for funding healthcare and education with tax dollars do so, their argument centers around the mindset of it's the right thing to do. That's a moral argument.

 

[Arianrhod]

Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified".

Nope.

 

[dblack]

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

Okay, now you've lost me. The PPACA doesn't coerce doctors into doing anything.

EMTALA does. PPACA coerces all citizens into buying insurance.

 

[Conservative65]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

The entire argument used by the left, despite what they say, is a moral argument. When they say providing healthcare and education, as just two examples, is the right thing to do, that's a moral argument. Determining right or wrong is what morality is all about.

 

[Conservative65]

Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified".

Nope.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so. Remember that.

When the argument is based on whether or not something is the right thing to do, that's a moral argument because morality is based on what's right or wrong.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

The entire argument used by the left, despite what they say, is a moral argument. When they say providing healthcare and education, as just two examples, is the right thing to do, that's a moral argument. Determining right or wrong is what morality is all about.

And now he not only talks around me, he attributes things I didn't say.

 

[Conservative65]

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

If they can't do the level of work that they should do in high school, they don't belong in college.

The problem with what you say is that many on the left want the rest of us to invest in something you say involves screw ups.

Unless, you really want to see the welfare state grow, then you should be in favor of providing education for those with lower abilities and aspirations that are in low skilled jobs.

Why should welfare grow when those getting it are the cause of them being eligible for it?

Even you said there are those for which high education doesn't work based on their abilities to learn at higher levels. Now, you're saying we should provide funding to those you say can't attain higher level skills.

 

[Arianrhod]

Legislating morality is exactly the argument used by people who say "sometimes coercion is justified".

Nope.

Your agreement isn't necessary for it to be so.

Add "moral" to the ever-growing list of words whose meaning eludes you...

Your response will be a variation on "BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!!!!11!"

 

[Conservative65]

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

The entire argument used by the left, despite what they say, is a moral argument. When they say providing healthcare and education, as just two examples, is the right thing to do, that's a moral argument. Determining right or wrong is what morality is all about.

And now he not only talks around me, he attributes things I didn't say.

I talk down AT you. You said providing healthcare and education isn't a moral issue. It's not a practical issue unless you can GUARANTEE what you call an investment will provide your stated return. Do you have that guarantee?