Where Do We Draw The Line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebehar

I believe voting is an obligation not a right.

---

I believe the obligation ought to be educating yourself about the candidates before voting.

Just before the last election I was watching TV with my sister, there was a guy that looked like Obama and I said, "Wow - that guy looks a lot like Barack Obama."
She said "Who is that?"

How does a vote from someone like that help anyone?

(note: my sister doesn't vote - and I think that's a good thing.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

So you want to draw the line towards mandatory voting? Doesn't sound like a step toward more freedom to me. For most people voting is a waste of time.
Of course, you can do a market based solution - let voters be able to openly sell their vote to the highest bidder. You'll probably get the same results as now, but at lower overall cost.

---

No wasn't suggesting mandatory voting but it would be much better if people saw it as a civic duty than simply throwing up their hands and saying screw it (as tempting as that may be.) I guess I haven't answered the question yet. Where do I draw the line? Not sure, but I'm pretty sure when I put to to words, I'll get beat to death over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I love this type of discussion started by people who are concerned about the nanny state.
It is a reality that if the government did no mandate certain things, private enterprise / capitalism would not 'compete fairly to the best interest of the consumer'. They would collude, and lie, cheat and steal to get as much money out of your pocket as possible.

---

And those in government never collude, and lie, cheat and steal to get as much money out of your pocket as possible? The difference is that you have a choice not to participate with private industry. If you allow yourself to be fooled into participation by their tactics, especially when you should know better, then shame on you. If you refuse to participate with mandates of government, regardless if those mandates are legitimate or not, then the government can seize you or your property. Which would you prefer?

And in response to the OP:

It seems that we often forget that the line already exists in the form of our constitution which defines the rule of law that our government must follow. If we fail, or neglect, to read, understand and enforce the rules of the game, then it's anyone's game. And then who's to decide if the game was fairly played or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

And those in government never collude, and lie, cheat and steal to get as much money out of your pocket as possible? The difference is that you have a choice not to participate with private industry. If you allow yourself to be fooled into participation by their tactics, especially when you should know better, then shame on you. If you refuse to participate with mandates of government, regardless if those mandates are legitimate or not, then the government can seize you or your property. Which would you prefer?

---

+100 if you're counting on the government to be the arbitor of fair equitable and honest...Wow! let me know how that works out for ya. By definition, life is not fair and nothing is equal. If one of the "dastardly Capitalists" has the tumerity to make more money than I do, good for him. Don't know about you but I never got a paycheck from anyone who makes less money than me. I have less than zero problem with laws and legislation keeping opportunities equal. Results however should be left to the individual. Otherwise where's the incentive to work hard or do anything exceptional? In any such "egalitarian" economy, citizens regardless of their unique talents, intelligence and work ethic, become little more than farm animals, queuing up at the government trough at the appointed time. The only thing being equally distributed is misery. Unless of course you're part of the government elite, in which case, you have the best of everything while the common folks at best have whatever is left. It really is like a sophisticated intellectual exercise in slopping the hogs and guess what, most of us are hogs. Thanks but no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

---

I would be interested in a link or two to that story before I care to comment. I can say that a friend of mine went to our local hospital and underwent tests. They found he had a heart problem and a few days later they flew him an hour and half away to under go open heart surgery. All went well and he was flown home. Virtually no out of pocket expenses. He has absolutely no complaints. You got your stories and I have mine.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

---

Hell, we don't even half to point our fingers at Canada for such outrageous BS. Here's how our own benevolent leader plans to take care of old people. NOTICE THE SOURCE, not Fox News or some other "right wing propoganda outlet" This is from ABC the state controlled media! Apparently when we're too old to help fund his grand social experiment he's just gonna give us some pain meds and call it good. Anyone who's actually up for four more years of this nonsense ought to have their heads examined.
Obama's Health Care Solution for Elderly - Just take a Pill - YouTube

Please! Stop! The Stupid Hurts My Brain!
But seriously, how is it even physiologically possible that people this stupid continue to live! Where do I even start? Workers in North Korea are paid a fair wage!? Che Guevarra not a mass murderer? Someone who grew up in the USSR has no clue about socialism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5lu...feature=fvwrel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

---

The amount of Canadian news that makes it south is laughable, as is the spin put on most of the stories that do. I'm not sure which story you are describing, but the scenario is hardly typical and I suspect that not all of the facts have been represented either. If an unfortunate situation like this arises it is likely due to the fact that new drugs or treatment are not available in Canada yet, or have yet to be approved, so naturally it will not be covered by Health Care. In the rare cases where this happens no one is forced to die, and the option of receiving treatment in the States is always there. Many times fundraisers are held at the community level and the family ends up paying nothing for the treatment. These issues are due to bureaucracy mostly in the medical industry, not some sadist government official. You know, bureaucracy, like an insurance company?

Let me put this very plainly: THERE ARE NO DEATH PANELS IN CANADA OR WITH "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE". The entire concept was foisted upon the public by insurance companies, you know, the ones with the most to lose with so-called socialized medicine. Canada's health care system may not be perfect, but there are no companies profiting by denying care to those who are dying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Hell, we don't even half to point our fingers at Canada for such outrageous BS. Here's how our own benevolent leader plans to take care of old people. NOTICE THE SOURCE, not Fox News or some other "right wing propoganda outlet" This is from ABC the state controlled media! Apparently when we're too old to help fund his grand social experiment he's just gonna give us some pain meds and call it good. Anyone who's actually up for four more years of this nonsense ought to have their heads examined.
Obama's Health Care Solution for Elderly - Just take a Pill - YouTube

---

wow. what an incredibly gross twisting of words. watch it again and listen carefully.

"what we can do is make sure at least some of the waste in the system that is not making anyone's mom better...that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care..."

MEANING...doctors are ordering tests and prescribing drugs that are NOT NEEDED because they know insurance companies are footing the bill. if you aren't footing the bill, you will take whatever test the doctor tells you to. unless maybe you work for a hospital or are a doctor, i don't see how that is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebehar

The point of my OP was to just have a discussion. Personally, I believe government should, nay, has an obligation to administer health care for its citizens. I know, there's room for abuse, but overall its better than the alternative.

---

I am not 100% against it but why should government have an "obligation" to administer health care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Have you ever had a friend saved by a Mobile ICU?

---

Nope. But I'm certainly happy to see you finally found something you think your government is good at, even if the US government's main contribution to the development of computers was paying top dollar to buy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

No wasn't suggesting mandatory voting but it would be much better if people saw it as a civic duty than simply throwing up their hands and saying screw it (as tempting as that may be.) I guess I haven't answered the question yet.

---

Right, so you have got no idea whatsoever what can be done, but that wouldn't stop you from bashing your fellow citizens for not doing their 'voting duty'. Even when by not voting they contribute ten times more to the society than when you vote from your high horse. Great ethic indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

+100 if you're counting on the government to be the arbitor of fair equitable and honest...Wow!

---

Didn't realize you hate the american political system so much. I'm sorry if it comes as news to you but at the end of the day the government is in fact set as the arbiter of fair, equitable and honest (cf. the founding documents of USA).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Apparently when we're too old to help fund his grand social experiment he's just gonna give us some pain meds and call it good. Anyone who's actually up for four more years of this nonsense ought to have their heads examined.

---

If that's what you got from the video, then I must say it's a good thing for you that you were born in USA and weren't required to pass listening comprehension tests in order make it to this country (I was).