Father Knows Best Conservatism Trumps Conservative Policy

[dianaiad]

You're going to have to write complete sentences if you want to understand what you mean.

What societies have done what? I have no idea what you're referring to.[/QUOTE]

'Equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity" was not meant to be a complete sentence. It is a 'title,' or a concept.

If you can't understand the phrase, I suggest that you join a 'word a day' program.

As for societies who have tried that?

Every single communist state that has ever existed is based upon that.

And every single communist state that has attempted it has failed.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Stay out of public parks/libraries and off of public roads then, and don't dare call the fire or police dept.

And they should stay off the internet because we paid for its research and development

 

[Father Heathen]

Those who pay for public libraries and parks, use the roads and the fire/police departments also are able to USE them.

I, however, who through my taxes, etc., PAY for stuff like 'Obama phones" and "Obamacare," and Section 8 housing and the proposed free health care for illegal immigrants and that free internet...don't get to use any of that.

In fact, my son pointed out to me that the California proposal now being touted about giving 'undocumented aliens' or elegal aliens free health care (medical) involves raising HIS taxes to pay for it, and he can't afford the $500 per month premium he's paying for his health insurance.

Pay for libraries and parks and roads and first responder services? Of course. WE CAN CALL 911 when we need help.

But paying for services for illegal aliens that we can't afford ourselves, or have access to when we DO pay for them?

Not the same thing.

I never said that illegal immigrants should have access to government programs. I don't know where "free housing/internet" came from, either.
The rest of the developed, first world has universal healthcare. Citizens from those countries seem to prefer their system rather than desire one like ours, with price gouging, inflated premiums and co-pays. yet in those countries you can still opt out and go the private route if you desire.
Seems rather sociopathic to profit from sickness and death. Could you imagine privatized fire departments holding your burning home for ransom with an outrageous fee (far beyond the actual expense of putting out the fire)? And if you couldn't afford it they let it burn to the ground?

 

[dianaiad]

I never said that illegal immigrants should have access to government programs. I don't know where "free housing/internet" came from, either.
The rest of the developed, first world has universal healthcare. Citizens from those countries seem to prefer their system rather than desire one like ours, with price gouging, inflated premiums and co-pays. yet in those countries you can still opt out and go the private route if you desire.
Seems rather sociopathic to profit from sickness and death. Could you imagine privatized fire departments holding your burning home for ransom with an outrageous fee (far beyond the actual expense of putting out the fire)? And if you couldn't afford it they let it burn to the ground?

Well, no place in the USA does that with the fire departments, etc.

As to where 'internet/free housing' comes from, that IS what the left wants for everybody. Free everything for everybody.

It's that thing about conservatives saying that we should give more to charity and help other people more, and the liberal walking beside them agreeing. Conservatives SHOULD give more to charity and help other people more, and liberals are going to see to it that they not only do that, but do that in a way liberals approve of and are in charge of.

Liberals are not prone to handing out their OWN money to charitable organizations, though. Conservatives (Republicans) are considerably more likely to give, in both money and volunteer hours, than liberals (Democrats).This has been shown in many different studies. Those people who disagree with those studies do so on the idea that Conservatives give more to religious organizations, and that this somehow invalidates them as charities that actually help people...as if the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and the LDS Welfare system tucked all their money into something other than helping people.

It's downright embarrassing, actually. To the liberals.

Universal health care only works for smaller nations, not big ones. The more people included in the program, the more problems come up.

......and believe me, I KNOW what would have happened to ME if the USA had the sort of universal health care provided by the UK, Canada or Australia.

I would have been dead four years ago. That's what would have happened to me. The procedures which have saved my life and kept me going would have been denied me. I KNOW that, because I belong to a global support group for the condition I have, and know precisely what people have to go through in order to get care from those systems.

The USA is something like four or five years ahead of those other systems in terms of research, etc.

Does the USA need to fix the healthcare system?

Yes. But single payer universal health care run by a government bureaucracy more concerned with numbers and costs than the people who need care? Not the way to go.

At all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I, however, who through my taxes, etc., PAY for stuff like 'Obama phones" and "Obamacare,"

That government plan has been around way before Obama. Instead of cell phones, they used to give land lines. Healthcare is something everyone needs and uses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Could you imagine privatized fire departments holding your burning home for ransom with an outrageous fee (far beyond the actual expense of putting out the fire)? And if you couldn't afford it they let it burn to the ground?

We dont have to imagine: been there, tried that, it was a disaster for the reasons you stated.

 

[dianaiad]

That government plan has been around way before Obama. Instead of cell phones, they used to give land lines. Healthcare is something everyone needs and uses.

But everyone doesn't have access to the healthcare THEY have to pay for.

That's what this proposed thing in California is about: taxes get raised to pay for health care given to illegal aliens. Those who PAY for it don't get access to it. They pay the taxes...and then they have to pay the premiums for their own health care.

I propose this idea...or something like it.

Everybody pays into an insurance plan; like medicare. Private companies can then compete for those premiums.

I pay medicare every month. I belong to Kaiser Permanente, which is a private insurance company that offers a 'senior advantage' plan. They take the medicare payment I make, and offer considerably better care than Medicare does...and if they don't provide the services I need, they contract out to those who do, like, oh, the City of Hope. Yes, I have to go to the doctors in the system, and use the hospitals in the system, (unless they do contract out to the City of Hope or someone) but I'm not STUCK with them, and because they are competitive, if I don't like it, I can take my premium and go to another company that also offers programs like this. There are several.

Or I can just stick to medicare and go with any doctor who will accept it.

MY choice. And those who offer health care services need to compete for my business.

Not, mind you, that I'm a really good bet. Believe me, I cost the company considerably more than my premiums supply.

What will NOT work is a single payer system that the government runs, where the GOVERNMENT can decide who gets what according to some criteria that has little to nothing to do with the specific patient in need.

And that is what happens to patients stuck with 'universal health care' provided according to the European or UK model.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What will NOT work is a single payer system that the government runs, where the GOVERNMENT can decide who gets what according to some criteria that has little to nothing to do with the specific patient in need.

We already have a system where insurance decides what a patient will or won't get. A single payer doesn't mean it's going to replace insurance with the state deciding things. And if it does, nothing changes and providers carry on committing fraud to get services to patients.
And FYI, European countries often have private options available. And without, do you hear them complaining and longing for something like ours?

 

[Shad]

A single payer doesn't mean it's going to replace insurance with the state deciding things.

Someone is in charge of a single-payer system. That is government when it is a government program. Otherwise it would be a corporate monopoly which would be broken up. What do you think single-payer means? You are only fooling yourself here.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, no place in the USA does that with the fire departments, etc.

As to where 'internet/free housing' comes from, that IS what the left wants for everybody. Free everything for everybody.

It's that thing about conservatives saying that we should give more to charity and help other people more, and the liberal walking beside them agreeing. Conservatives SHOULD give more to charity and help other people more, and liberals are going to see to it that they not only do that, but do that in a way liberals approve of and are in charge of.

Liberals are not prone to handing out their OWN money to charitable organizations, though. Conservatives (Republicans) are considerably more likely to give, in both money and volunteer hours, than liberals (Democrats).This has been shown in many different studies. Those people who disagree with those studies do so on the idea that Conservatives give more to religious organizations, and that this somehow invalidates them as charities that actually help people...as if the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and the LDS Welfare system tucked all their money into something other than helping people.

It's downright embarrassing, actually. To the liberals.

What's embarrassing is presuming what others actually think and do, as if "the left" is some sort of homogeneous, monolithic hivemind. I'm not anti-capitalist, nor do I want "free everything for everybody." I often give to charities, donate clothing, give blood, etc. as do other liberals. I'm sure you get annoyed by those who accuse all conservatives of being racist, right? Does a few bad apples spoil the bunch?

Universal health care only works for smaller nations, not big ones. The more people included in the program, the more problems come up.

......and believe me, I KNOW what would have happened to ME if the USA had the sort of universal health care provided by the UK, Canada or Australia.

I would have been dead four years ago. That's what would have happened to me. The procedures which have saved my life and kept me going would have been denied me. I KNOW that, because I belong to a global support group for the condition I have, and know precisely what people have to go through in order to get care from those systems.

The USA is something like four or five years ahead of those other systems in terms of research, etc.

Does the USA need to fix the healthcare system?

Yes. But single payer universal health care run by a government bureaucracy more concerned with numbers and costs than the people who need care? Not the way to go.

At all.

Of course the privatized route should still be available as in option just as it is in countries that have universal healthcare. For example we have public schools, but we have private schools as well.

I don't really want higher taxes, but I believe we can be significantly more efficient and less wasteful with what we're already spending. We could redirect much of the massive amount we dump on an already bloated military. Also we could make money on cannabis and other "soft drugs" rather than waste money fighting a losing battle against them. How much are we losing on over-crowded prisons with excessive and disproportionate sentencing regarding non-violent, victimless offenses? I believe that legalizing, regulating, and taxing cannabis along with a few other victimless crimes to rake in revenue would help significantly. Colorado has recently passed $1 billion in marijuana state revenue.

 

[Father Heathen]

Someone is in charge of a single-payer system. That is government when it is a government program. Otherwise it would be a corporate monopoly which would be broken up. What do you think single-payer means? You are only fooling yourself here.

The difference is a corporation's priority is profit, whereas a government's priority is (supposed to be) the people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Someone is in charge of a single-payer system. That is government when it is a government program. Otherwise it would be a corporate monopoly which would be broken up. What do you think single-payer means? You are only fooling yourself here.

Except that I have professional experience in health care and have dealt with insurance deciding yes or no. So Im not fooling myself. Insurance fraud is actually pretty common as it is as health care providers are apt for lying in their reports for insurance so a patient can get necessary care that would otherwise be denied (I've done it, and its been done for me). That's why I also say if the state replaces insurance in that situation, nothing changes. Except the state (a good number, anyways) tends to be more open for suggestions.

 

[fantome profane]

Well, if ya means "social justice" as pursued by
the white saviour industrial complex, well, that
may not be what "liberty and justice for all"
was intended to mean.

I think this just illustrates my point.

 

[PureX]

What societies have done what? I have no idea what you're referring to.

'Equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity" was not meant to be a complete sentence. It is a 'title,' or a concept.

If you can't understand the phrase, I suggest that you join a 'word a day' program.

As for societies who have tried that?

Every single communist state that has ever existed is based upon that.

And every single communist state that has attempted it has failed.[/QUOTE]Communism has never been tried except on very a verysmall scale. What you falsely call "communism" was never actually communism, it was totalitarian dictatorship masquerading as communism, and you fell for the masquerade because it plays into your willful ignorance and bias in favor of greed.

 

[dianaiad]

Communism has never been tried except on very a verysmall scale. What you falsely call "communism" was never actually communism, it was totalitarian dictatorship masquerading as communism, and you fell for the masquerade because it plays into your willful ignorance and bias in favor of greed.

You are illustrating my point. Those who try it end up in just such totalitarian dictatorships. Every single time.

The ONLY time pure communism works (and it can) is when it is done in small groups supported by larger, capitalist groups, so that the participants are truly free to participate...or to leave.

It HAS been done, oddly enough, in the USA. Doesn't last long here, either, because of government interference.

The one I know best about is something called 'The United Order," which were small communities within my own belief system. The participants entered into it freely, and could leave freely if it didn't work for them. In fact, one of those communities, based in...I think...Montana lasted about three generations. Seventy years or so, and did very well. It finally went belly up because, well...pure communist living doesn't work in a government that levies a personal income tax.

So yeah, don't go getting insulting here, bub. Before you start calling other people 'ignorant,' and 'biased,' and 'greedy,' it would be good to be sure that your debate opponent IS 'willfully ignorant' and 'greedy.'

Because you are absolutely correct. the 'real deal' of communism only HAS been tried in small groups. It absolutely REQUIRES that the individuals participating in it be willing and eager volunteers, and that any who have problems can freely leave and use another system.

And you are absolutely correct; all those nations which have tried communism, and called it that, end up to be totalitarian dictatorships. In other words, Communism on a governmental scale, enforced from 'without,' FAILS.

Every time.

Pure communism..like the 'United Order" and the attempts by early Christians, is utterly dependent upon individual faith and determination, individual choice and action. It cannot be imposed from without or regulated by government income redistribution measures.

And you have just proven my point.

 

[sealchan]

Equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

Look at the societies that have tried this.

It
Does
not
work.

There are economic feedback loops that work for those with a certain level of disposable income and against those who fall under that line. And often those under that line do the work required to sustain the value of the work of those above that line.

We should equalize those feedback loops in order to give everyone the same basic opportunity to put something back into the system rather than be a drag on that system.

So graduates with immense loan debt who cant buy a home, employed parents too busy working to buy food, housing and medicine to spend time with their children, these are issues of opportunity.

We dont want our people having to choose between knowledge, health, food and safety due to their limited income in spite of their full time employed effort.

 

[sealchan]

Capitalism, as an economic system, by definition, gives "control of the means of production" (i.e., control of all aspects of commerce and economic well-being) to the capital investor. Who, naturally, seeks only to maximize the profit returned on the capital invested. It is literally; systematized greed. People who already have more money than they need are being given the power to use that money to capture even more money that they don't need, by taking it away from those who don't have enough, or just barely have enough to live on. It empowers greed. It rewards greed. It justifies greed as the primary motive of every commercial interaction turning commerce into exploitation.

And it has leveraged the relative technological and military strength of one country to exploit the resources of other countries. Got to love those cheap foreign imports.

 

[sealchan]

Well, no place in the USA does that with the fire departments, etc.

...which is the point...

As to where 'internet/free housing' comes from, that IS what the left wants for everybody. Free everything for everybody.

Black and white characterizations never do anyone's sincere opinions justice. I would think that we should want universal health care before we would want universal education (to high school). Maybe what we need is universal healthcare at a high school level.

It's that thing about conservatives saying that we should give more to charity and help other people more, and the liberal walking beside them agreeing. Conservatives SHOULD give more to charity and help other people more, and liberals are going to see to it that they not only do that, but do that in a way liberals approve of and are in charge of.

Sure because charity is at the whim and interest of the individual. Should we provide other services to ourselves like education or emergency response services based on the whim of local or even national benefactors?

Liberals are not prone to handing out their OWN money to charitable organizations, though. Conservatives (Republicans) are considerably more likely to give, in both money and volunteer hours, than liberals (Democrats).This has been shown in many different studies. Those people who disagree with those studies do so on the idea that Conservatives give more to religious organizations, and that this somehow invalidates them as charities that actually help people...as if the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and the LDS Welfare system tucked all their money into something other than helping people.

If liberals willingness to sacrifice their paychecks toward systematic charity is prohibited then we obviously are not comparing apples to apples.
[/quote]

It's downright embarrassing, actually. To the liberals.

Universal health care only works for smaller nations, not big ones. The more people included in the program, the more problems come up.

......and believe me, I KNOW what would have happened to ME if the USA had the sort of universal health care provided by the UK, Canada or Australia.

I would have been dead four years ago. That's what would have happened to me. The procedures which have saved my life and kept me going would have been denied me. I KNOW that, because I belong to a global support group for the condition I have, and know precisely what people have to go through in order to get care from those systems.

The USA is something like four or five years ahead of those other systems in terms of research, etc.

Does the USA need to fix the healthcare system?

Yes. But single payer universal health care run by a government bureaucracy more concerned with numbers and costs than the people who need care? Not the way to go.

At all.

My grandson is probably in an analogous situation with yourself. He was born with a congenital defect that my family couldnt afford. His care was paid for by a children's hospital.

What if we provided universal healthcare for children up to a certain age? Then those who donate their extra income to children's hospitals could focus that money on other concerns and all families could raise their children without the threat of economic ruin and the incentive for abortion would be greatly reduced.

 

[PureX]

And it has leveraged the relative technological and military strength of one country to exploit the resources of other countries. Got to love those cheap foreign imports.

"Cheap", but SO costly in the end.

 

[sealchan]

If we live with an us vs them competitive attitude exclusively then those who win will find themselves surrounded by those who didn't. Everyone gets that individuals will be singled out their either luck, talent, effort or some combination of those three things for relative fame and prosperity...but that is no argument against the fact that we are all one people and we all have a duty to each other as well as to ourselves.

Besides in a democracy (or republic) we all have oversight over our government, so arguing that government is some uncontrollable entity even more so than a privately held business does not make sense.

Stubborn greed in the face of widespread economic hardship of the majority is a more likely cause of totalitarianism than is a government that mandates a measured level of equality through taxes. It is not about all or nothing, it is everything about balance.