tkhayes 150 #201 June 28, 2008 QuoteThe more cynical would believe that big medicine doesn't really want to solve chronic problems when they could instead sell a continuous supply of coping drugs/services. Kind of one of the points I was alluding to in my earlier posts. The CORPORATION runs healthcare - the CORPORATION (for the most part) runs education. I consider these to be fundamental services that should be provided to all. the CORPORATION will not do what is best for the customer/consumer. They will do what is best for the shareholder. Change the CORPORATE rules to stop that, and/or change the system to a government run system that looks after the PEOPLE, not the shareholders. What if we outsourced FEMA? Everyone bitches when they do not do enough, yet we accept the fact that they can spend money like crazy and they are never doing enough to help? They are a 'socialized' service provided to all. If the CORPORATIONS are so damn good, then we ought to outsource ALL government. But the fact is, the corporations are not all that good. Many of them suck. But any corporation should be doing something good for society as well as their shareholders - it is a fundamental flaw in the way the corporate laws are written, and certainly a far stretch from what was intended when the corporate idea started 150 or so years ago Healthcare, run by a bunch of public servants making $100k-$200K looking after and answering to the PEOPLE is far better than CEO's making $1M or more, looking after the shareholders. Private system as well? Sure - those who have the $$ and do not want to wait can go out and buy it. Those hit by catastrophic circumstances in their lives do not need to see their lives ruined because the CORPORATION decides to fight them on their coverage - if they are lucky enough to be able to afford it. So back to the thread - shut down the foreign military bases, bring home all the soldiers, use the forces to secure our own borders, reduce the size of the military, spend more money on education and healthcare...... I will vote for any man/woman who pledges to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #202 June 28, 2008 QuoteBut any corporation should be doing something good for society as well as their shareholders - it is a fundamental flaw in the way the corporate laws are written, and certainly a far stretch from what was intended when the corporate idea started 150 or so years ago Bull - as you say above, the FUNCTION of a business is to make money, not social activism. QuoteHealthcare, run by a bunch of public servants making $100k-$200K looking after and answering to the PEOPLE is far better than CEO's making $1M or more, looking after the shareholders. Let's see.... FEMA (and so much other stuff the government does) sucks - I know, let's put the government in charge of even MORE stuff so it can suck MORE!!! Great logic, dude. Does the medical insurance system need overhauling? Yeah, I'm sure it does. Is putting fed.gov in charge of it the best way to do it? AbsoFUCKINGlutely not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #203 June 30, 2008 QuoteChange the CORPORATE rules to stop that, and/or change the system to a government run system that looks after the PEOPLE, not the shareholders. ALERT: *** Shareholders aren't people.*** *** Shareholders aren't people. *** Shareholders are actually robots that fabricate money then hand it over to corporations who take it and put it in their pockets. 000edit for spelling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #204 June 30, 2008 QuoteCan we assume that you believe only those with approved political ideologies should be allowed to vote? No. It's just that he said republicans should be aniahlated. That means destroyed, killed, wiped out. ouch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #205 June 30, 2008 QuoteBetter corporate rules that ensure that corporations do something good for society in general, as well as for the shareholders, instead of all decisions based upon the economic bottom line, which as we have seen since the industrial revolution is not always the best thing. (Pollution, environmental damage, job losses, job going overseas, etc) Tk, I got news for you, a 'corporation' has one basic goal: to make a profit. If you don't like that then don't buy their product. Listen, If I open a pizza chain who the hell are you to tell me that I have to look after the "common good of the people' before I make a profit??? Bull. My job is to sell my product, pay my employees and pay Uncle Sam. You hate corporations? What has Universal Studios given back to the community? What about Burger King? Blockbuster? Pizza Hut? MTV? GAP? Victoria Secret? BullsEye Telecom? Cardinal Building & Design Co. ? Communication Solutions Inc? Earthscapes, Inc.? Evonik/Degussa? Expert Crane Inc? Home Furnishings Geneses Hair? On the Spot Massage LLC ? Bartlett's hometown heating and cooling? hospice & palliateve care of virginia? Day's Inn? Ace Parking Management Fishtales, INC.? You get on the phone with these corporations and tell them to put your 'interests' ahead of their bottom line. Good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #206 June 30, 2008 QuoteWhat if we outsourced FEMA? Everyone bitches when they do not do enough, yet we accept the fact that they can spend money like crazy and they are never doing enough to help? They are a 'socialized' service provided to all. If the CORPORATIONS are so damn good, then we ought to outsource ALL government. I agree 100% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 150 #207 June 30, 2008 people like you scare me. The CORPORATION, if you are being so unrealistic as to misread what I say - using PROFIT, as the bottom line, is not good for society as a whole. If indeed, their only goal is to make profit, and we let them run the country, will obviously destroy anything, walk over anything and do anything to the people of the country to make that profit. If you cannot see that as a bad thing, then you are simply blind. Who then regulates the corporation, if for example, we let the corporation OWN all the water and the air and the food (as the most basic of example) If the corporation only exists to make profit, then fine, I have no problem with that. But take away their ability and right to donate and support political persons or parties. Because their motive is not taking care of the people (the purpose of government), it is only profit. Not all corporations are bad. Not all government agencies are bad. FEMA has done bad things (Katrina) - they are also doing good things (Current floods and greensburg, KS for example) Corporations do good things ($4 prescriptions at Walmart) but Walmart is also responsible for lots of bad employee practices and encouraging manufacturing job to go overseas. So if you think that McDonnell-Douglas could run FEMA better, using profit as a motive? I would like to see the model of how that would work. Hence my issue with health care for example. It fails because the corporation's motive is money, not healthcare. Easy enough for a capitalist to say "go buy it somewhere else", but y'know what? I can't. It is the classic example of where the "competition drives down the cost and forces high quality of product/service" does not work. Even mnealtx as well seems to actually AGREE with me that the healthcare system is broken - but I do not see any solutions being offered just comments like 'Bull' Well 'Bull' to both of you - since you seem to like to bash, but you do not offer any solution. Healthcare should be socialized. But a private system available as well. That is a solution, not naysaying. FEMA should be fixed, yes. If I remember correctly, they botched the initial response of Katrina and some people got sacked. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? Home Depot's CEO botched it and got sacked but walked away with $175M. Is THAT the way it is supposed to work? Sorry if I am sounding 'logical' Corporations should be EXTEREMLY limited in their political powers. If, as you say, their motive is to make money, then let them. But take away their political power since the purpose of the government is to take care of the people. That is also (part of) a solution, not just 'Bull'. Oh, and by the way, shareholders ARE people, but not all people are shareholders. Again, I would hope you could see that....... Is Obama going to fix all that? Probably not. Bush has handed more power over the the corporations than ever. Bad. McCain will do even more damage. So Obama it is (for healthcare I hope and hopefully an end to the war). McCain has no 'hope' just a continuation of this charade. By 'annihilation', I meant in Congress, but again, you like to misread what I say/said. In Canada about 12-15 years ago, the Progressive Conservatives (right wing) did such a horrible job and pissed off the country SO BAD, that is the general election, they were 'annihilated' from a majority government of some 200 seats in the Parliament to only 2 or 3 seats. Even the good guys were sacked, just because they were PC. That is what I mean by 'annihilation'. It might get the message across to the right wing in this country if the Republicans lose the Presidential race by an 80/20 margin. I expect that will not happen - more of that 'silly idealism of mine I guess. Even here in Florida, most of the conservative seniors have pretty much had it with the right wing. Our Representatives in Congress have been nothing but parrots for George Bush (you know him - that guy with the 27% approval rating) and I expect to see some dramatic shift in the right/left proportions. Great thing about having such a dickhead for a President is that it gets people off their ass to vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #208 June 30, 2008 QuoteHence my issue with health care for example. It fails because the corporation's motive is money, not healthcare. Easy enough for a capitalist to say "go buy it somewhere else", but y'know what? I can't. Sure you can. There are different hospitals, and different insurance plans. QuoteIt is the classic example of where the "competition drives down the cost and forces high quality of product/service" does not work. Even mnealtx as well seems to actually AGREE with me that the healthcare system is broken - but I do not see any solutions being offered just comments like 'Bull' Our healthcare system is not broken, except to the extent that the federal and state governments already dictate too much. It's not perfect, it's not part of the communist Utopia. QuoteWell 'Bull' to both of you - since you seem to like to bash, but you do not offer any solution. Sure they do. You just don't like it. The "solution" is to keep the Feds as far away from it as possible. QuoteHealthcare should be socialized. But a private system available as well. That is a solution, not naysaying. Why should I pay for your healthcare? Why should someone else pay for mine? Healthcare is another consumer service, not a "right" and should be available on the open market like anything else.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 150 #209 June 30, 2008 QuoteSure you can. There are different hospitals, and different insurance plans. I will explain. No I Can't. For me, and millions of other americans, it is still unaffordable, and the prices and coverages are varying degree of 'sucks'. It is extremely expensive for me, and gets worse every year. so eventually, I will NOT be able to afford it. Don't say I can just go somewhere else - because I am living proof that those options do not exist for me. The competitive model does not work for everyone. argument #2 for socialized medicine. In case no one noticed, a very large chuck of the country does not have any....it that because they are all lazy good-for-nothings unable to get a job that pays for it? The world need janitors too. But the janitor does not make enough money to pay for it in this system. But the janitor has the same needs as you and me. QuoteOur healthcare system is not broken, except to the extent that the federal and state governments already dictate too much. It's not perfect, it's not part of the communist Utopia. to call a two-tiered private and public system 'communist' is simply naive (and extremist). Have you read up on communism lately? But glad we agree that it is not 'perfect'. QuoteSure they do. You just don't like it. The "solution" is to keep the Feds as far away from it as possible. And I already stated several times why that will not work. QuoteWhy should I pay for your healthcare? Why should someone else pay for mine? Healthcare is another consumer service, not a "right" and should be available on the open market like anything else. We disagree. Healthcare is a right. "The right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness". You should pay for my healthcare, the same as I should pay for yours. Someday you might need it. And it is actually CHEAPER than the current system we have. It is not driven by profits, but by a desire to provide healthcare. If we parallel that system with a private system that provides extra, special or supplemental care, then I am all for it and you can choose to go buy that stuff, just like you can choose to go to a private school. Perhaps you have not had a catastrophic injury that required a long hospital stay and surgery, a long battle with your insurance company, had your credit rating trashed just because you got hurt and no ability to pay for it. I HAD health insurance and this still happened to me. The system is BROKEN and needs to be fixed. If we keep doing what we are doing now - we will continue to get the same results. I pay for public education through my taxes because I should - even though I am not putting any kids in school. But it is a 'right' (as I see it) and a good thing for society and America as a whole, therefore I should do it. Education is a right - Healthcare is a right (in the 21st century), food on my table is a right. Lots of other things are not.... but these are fundamentals that I believe are rights - you are welcome to disagree with me on November 11. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #210 June 30, 2008 Quoteyou are welcome to disagree with me on November 11. Hmmm. I disagree pretty much all year 'round. But, I know what you mean. Trouble for me is, there is no candidate for me to disagree with. That is, for me to agree with so I can disagree with you ... with. Education is not a right, nor is healthcare, nor food. And yes, I know what communism is, and it is my opinion that you think like a communist. Yeah, you and I are on total opposite ends of the geo-political-universe. I prefer to be free to take care of my family and my community through my church, rather than be forced to provide "charity" at gunpoint by a faceless government. My solution rewards success, reliance on family, and brings people closer to God. The feds want you to rely on them more than family or God. I am afraid you are right about November. Myself, Mike, Scooby, we may become the minority. Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I can't find the exact quote, but it goes something like "When the people find that they can vote themselves large portions of the public treasure, the end of the Union is near." That's what most politicians, and most definately Obama, are leading us toward. More "safety", less freedom. Just remember that freedom isn't free. For Americans, it has been paid for in blood before, and may have to be yet again.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 150 #211 June 30, 2008 maybe part of the reason that so many despise, fear and do not trust the government is that the government and the system that puts it is place is actually flawed. Good government actually exists in many places. Anarchy is an idealism too, it does not work either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #212 June 30, 2008 Quote but these are fundamentals that I believe are rights - you are welcome to disagree with me on November 11. Are you trying to trick him into missing the election by a week? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #213 June 30, 2008 QuoteHealthcare is a right Well, in THAT case... *I* have the right to a million dollar a month paycheck. A *RIGHT* is something that the government is not supposed to interfere with...NOT something the government is supposed to provide.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 150 #214 June 30, 2008 don't be absurd. never said anything about million dollar paychecks.... - I have been very specific, food, healthcare, education, - fundamental rights. by PROVIDING any of these (when needed, not all the time), it would be hard to call it interference. And if it is what the people decide they want - then it is not even a burden to society because society decided that it wants these fundamental rights. still looking for your plan.... 'bull', comments about 'great logic' etc, simple naysaying - but you agree with me that the system is broken...... so your take on it would be?....... you already subscribe to the 'socialized military', the 'socialized public education system', the socialized public library', you liberal you....... ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #215 June 30, 2008 Food - food stamps are already provided to those in need. Healthcare - Medicare, Medicaid...already provided. Education - already provided by property owners via taxes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #216 June 30, 2008 Quote Education - already provided by property owners via taxes. that is no longer the funding method for schools. Money goes to the general fund, then back out to the schools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #217 June 30, 2008 Quote Quote Education - already provided by property owners via taxes. that is no longer the funding method for schools. Money goes to the general fund, then back out to the schools. NIIIIiiiice.... Something ELSE for fed.gov to raid like the SS fund...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #218 June 30, 2008 Education is funded at the state level, not federal. and it was done because in the old method, the rich neighborhoods had schools with a lot of money, while the poor neighborhoods had schools with far less. 'Separate but equal' in the modern day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 150 #219 July 1, 2008 QuoteFood - food stamps are already provided to those in need. Healthcare - Medicare, Medicaid...already provided. Education - already provided by property owners via taxes. Close - good programs, but they do not all fit the bill. I have less issue with education or food than I do with healthcare, which you still admit is broken. So yes, food stamps are good. Not many people in this country really go hungry - but I still believe it to be a fundamental right. Education is good, the public system has flaws, but at least kids can go to school, and are expected to. All good things for the USA. College education could use an overhaul.... should not take a mortgage to get a degree. It is a poor investment for society to burden their youth with getting an education and spending their first 10 years of working to pay it off, when all we preach is saving for retirement. How can you save for retirement when your debt is hanging over your head. Again, education could easily be subsidized and the payoff for society in the long run is hugely invaluable (and I believe a right) Oh yeah - then they have to buy health insurance for their family. The crux of the issue. Medicare and Medicaid are all decent programs. What's the big deal to extend that to all of society instead of just 65+'ers. I mean besides your obvious objection to it....... back to the thread at hand. LESS nuclear weapons and military (notice that I did not say NO nuclear weapons and military) and MORE money spent on the above programs and development of new programs. Sounds great to me. voting AGAINST McClain because his party is nothing but a bunch of God-preaching, fear mongering, government fuckup corporate cronies that do nothing good for 'the People', but do plenty to tow the party line..... and help the major corporations and the military. And for those that think I think like a Communist..... well there is a Communist Party in the USA and One in Canada too. I have never voted for or supported either one of them. If I was truly a Communist, then I would be towing a whole different line. I am not against corporations. I am against corporations that buy political power, when I am the one that cast the vote. If corporations want to make money, then let their charters and the laws of the land dictate just that and only that. Not treat them as the 'legal person' that they are currently defined as. Remove some (not all) of the protections that shield the individuals that run corporations from being prosecuted when they are at fault and make those BoD's more responsible for making sure that society as a whole benefits from their spoils and wares, not just the shareholders. Just looking for responsibility - which believe it or not, does not generally happen when the $$ is the bottom line.... Hard to believe I know but it is true..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #220 July 1, 2008 Ok... so basically what you're saying is that the government is fucking up SOME programs and those ones should be gotten rid of, but OTHER programs their influence should be expanded in. Dude, that doesn't make any sense. I understand you want to take of the government to take care of people, but that is NOT it's function. You're talking about all these material items or benefits being "rights" and it just doesn't work that way. You're (in essence) talking about womb-to-tomb nannycare and thinking it's going to somehow revitalize America - how well is that working in the inner cities, pray tell? Why should someone get up off their ass and get a job, if nanny.gov has a tit shoved in their mouth giving them everything they need? Read the Bill of Rights - it is a CONSTRAINT on government, saying "You can't do this, or this, or this" - THAT is what a right is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #221 July 1, 2008 >so basically what you're saying is that the government is fucking up >SOME programs and those ones should be gotten rid of, but OTHER >programs their influence should be expanded in. >Dude, that doesn't make any sense. ?? It's what everyone here does. Republicans want more money for the military. Democrats want more money for healthcare. And if anyone tries to touch either one, they either hate the troops or little old ladies. >I understand you want to take of the government to take care of >people, but that is NOT it's function. Other than that note in the US Constitution about "promoting the general welfare." Indeed, much of the function of the US government (including the military) is to "take care of people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #222 July 1, 2008 Quote>so basically what you're saying is that the government is fucking up >SOME programs and those ones should be gotten rid of, but OTHER >programs their influence should be expanded in. >Dude, that doesn't make any sense. ?? It's what everyone here does. Republicans want more money for the military. Democrats want more money for healthcare. And if anyone tries to touch either one, they either hate the troops or little old ladies. >I understand you want to take of the government to take care of >people, but that is NOT it's function. Other than that note in the US Constitution about "promoting the general welfare." Indeed, much of the function of the US government (including the military) is to "take care of people." Promote != Provide An important difference.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #223 July 1, 2008 It is a poor investment for society to burden their youth with getting an education and spending their first 10 years of working to pay it off. Quote Sooooo, who pays for it? Just looking for responsibility - which believe it or not, does not generally happen when the $$ is the bottom lineQuote Sure it happens. The best way to vote is with your dollars. A lot of folks stop buying at WalMart when they get bad press for employee practices, etc. People also quit those jobs and get better ones, if they can. Believe me, the BoD takes note. TK, you are an economic entity. You charge for your time and skill. Would you be willing to cut your repack fee in half for a year to promote our general welfare? Your DZ is also an economic entity. Can I come jump for free? I mean, once you cover your costs, there's really no need to make a profit and put more money in your pocket, is there? Or, could it be that you work hard to make your DZ more exciting, more attractive, more fun, more safe, and all that effort deserves the profit it makes? When it comes to product or service, you have price, availability, and quality. Pick two. That's all you get. Healthcare is no different. The best way to ration it is with the dollars of individuals making an informed choice in a free market. Yes, when you promote "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" you sound like a communist. As a matter of fact, just like Karl Marx himself. God bless his misguided soul. And Bill - "promote" does not equal provide. Another question. TK. If you break your leg jumping, would you come to me with a gun in your hand, or send someone else, point it at me and force me to pay Dr. Mudd?The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #224 July 1, 2008 Quote I can't find the exact quote, but it goes something like "When the people find that they can vote themselves large portions of the public treasure, the end of the Union is near." That's what most politicians, and most definately Obama, are leading us toward. More "safety", less freedom. That sounds like a very good summary of the Bush Administration that you guys voted for in 2000 and 2004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #225 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote I can't find the exact quote, but it goes something like "When the people find that they can vote themselves large portions of the public treasure, the end of the Union is near." That's what most politicians, and most definately Obama, are leading us toward. More "safety", less freedom. That sounds like a very good summary of the Bush Administration that you guys voted for in 2000 and 2004 Odd... i thought it was all the defense contracting companies that got all that money... make up your mind, will ya?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
