Mccain And-or Huckabeeeeeeeee

[TheScotsman]

But thats the thing, we blindly follow whenever there's a threat of terrorism. We trust in them.

"No go ahead Mr. President, I'll happily allow you to tap my phone if I ever make an international call."

"No Mr. President, my internet records are an open book for you to scan with whatever tools you have."

"No Mr. President, I'd love to have your national security agency track my purchases if you think it will protect me."

"As long as I dont have anything to hide, I really dont care what they look at." <----- I hear a lot of people say that.

Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

You are completely correct on every point.

The problem with the gov't looking, is that once they look at one thing with permission, suddenly they are everywhere. Gov't seems to always exceed it's limits. You have to remember, if they actually had thought you were doing something wrong, they wouldn't be reading your email (or posts on the hookah forum ) they would have you in a dim room, or some cage in Cuba for years on end.

The repubs have become masters of getting/keeping power through terrorism themselves. They may not be the ones performing the acts of terrorism, but in the end what is so different about using those same acts as a way to scare the average soccer-mom into voting for them in the name of being safe from unseen boggy-men?

[Bulldog_916]

In the words of Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black: "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

As long as you get all the sheep to believe the big bad wolf is after them, you can get them to do whatever you want.


So if all of that is true, if government really exceeds its limits with issues such as this, how can it be a bad thing for government to exceed its limits in health care? I'm looking at it from a perspective of a guy who understands that not all people have health insurance. Not everyone is ready if they get sick. I can just about guarantee you if everyone was able to be treated for their disease, you wouldnt hear heart disease as being the number one killer of Americans. You wouldnt hear that cancer kills over 350,000 people a year or more. I'm just talking about getting rudimentary treatment, not surgery or a complicated health program. Just basic treatment. But people cant afford a 900 dollar trip to the doctor's office every time they are ill. That's a problem.

[TheScotsman]

In the words of Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black: "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

As long as you get all the sheep to believe the big bad wolf is after them, you can get them to do whatever you want.


So if all of that is true, if government really exceeds its limits with issues such as this, how can it be a bad thing for government to exceed its limits in health care? I'm looking at it from a perspective of a guy who understands that not all people have health insurance. Not everyone is ready if they get sick. I can just about guarantee you if everyone was able to be treated for their disease, you wouldnt hear heart disease as being the number one killer of Americans. You wouldnt hear that cancer kills over 350,000 people a year or more. I'm just talking about getting rudimentary treatment, not surgery or a complicated health program. Just basic treatment. But people cant afford a 900 dollar trip to the doctor's office every time they are ill. That's a problem.

And that trust (or lack thereof), my friend, is my problem with national healthcare.
Can you imagine a bad budget year, could you trust... say and administrator appointed by curious george, to not just decide to balance the budget but cutting high-cost care? Maybe critical care for the very young, or very old. We have seen them throw social services to the wind, in favor of spending form more boots on the ground in some foreign land, what makes you think they wouldn't do the same with healthcare? We have a congress that wants to retroactively block any lawsuits against telecoms for violation of privacy when the jack-boots wanted access to private info. I can see people dying from lack of care, and the hospitals/agencies in charge being protected from liability by the gov't.

Even worse would be some semi-privatized system where you had the unhappy task of convincing both the insurance company and the gov't of the need and cost effectiveness of treatment. Keeping in mind the supreme court has already said the constabulary has no duty to protect a person, or even come if called. That all gov't services are not a right, but rather something provided at the will of the agency. Can you imagine a healthcare system with the same standard? Under a gov't run program that WOULD be the standard here.

Other countries with a national healthcare system value their citizens as people, not a national asset to be leeched for the growth of the gov't.

[St. Goodypants]

Other countries with a national healthcare system value their citizens as people, not a national asset to be leeched for the growth of the gov't.

Welcome to the notion of a corporate country.

[ghostofdavid]

I miss the good ole days when Americans could order automatic weapons through the back of Sears catalogs, when the churches foot the bill for anyone who couldn't afford health care/food/shelter/social justices and when we didn't reward entitlement mentality. No one has the right to anything but death. One size, fits all.

[Bulldog_916]

But one size doesnt fit all. We have to put our money toward educating our citizenry, keeping them healthy, and keeping our nation secure. We have to focus on getting our nation away from oil and cleaning up the environment. Education breeds jobs, it isnt the other way around. Health keeps production high, companies just now have caught onto that and have been battling against obesity and smoking. Security will come when we start to be ambassadors to the world instead of its police. There's an entitlement mentality because when government isnt funding education like it should, when schools in the inner city are being funded worse than schools in the ritziest parts of New York, there's a problem. Everyone is entitled to the same quality of education in the public school system. Every teacher is entitled to make more money if their students are succeeding at higher rates than another. Should we make all schools private? Not a chance in hell.