Question for Liberals

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
No but I enjoy a system where everybody gets a decent standard of healthcare, and most of us club together to pay for it.

if your arguments only work with extreme examples they really aren't real cognitive arguments are they?

:confused:

Do you expect the same level of care, at the same cost as Warren Buffett or Bill Gates?
 
I didn't go to the doctor so much for myself, but with three children, it was a necessity. Between my oldest daughter spending her first two weeks on life support (she was premature) and my son's sports related injuries and all those little things in between, I was lucky that my insurance paid a good portion of the bills.

Of course, I also worked for Blue Shield and had either no deductible or only 100 per person for a very low premium. My ex-husband had Kaiser. Back then, insurance was semi-affordable.
With kids, you seem to be doing all you can. Conservatives talk abort tort reform. How can you set a price limit on someone's child when sueing someone's doctor or hospital? I'd like to see costs regulated, but not government controlled. I just don't trust the efficiency of government. I'd try medical marijuana if it was legalized in my state. But I have to work and think clearly. I have no other choice that's palatable.
 

shagster01

New member
And where do these definitions come from?

The dictionary.

Secularism is a religion so it should be excluded.

A religion against religion?


sec-u-lar-ism
[sek-yuh-luh-riz-uh m]
noun

1.
secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secularism
 
Where was this?
That's the wrong question. Of course I'm talking about the United States of America. You should have asked when. Before Socialism began creeping into politics. The Great Depression lasted longer because FDR was socializing the country. He even tried packing the Supreme Court. World War II brought us out of the Great Depression, not FDR. People took care of people in need without government involvement. That's a fact.

that is why we need to reign in military spending, return to taxing the mega wealthy, and penalizing companies that move their production and administration overseas.
You could tax the rich at 100% and it still would not be enough. We need the military to protect us against those Canadians to the north.
 

TracerBullet

New member
That's the wrong question. Of course I'm talking about the United States of America. You should have asked when. Before Socialism began creeping into politics. The Great Depression lasted longer because FDR was socializing the country. He even tried packing the Supreme Court. World War II brought us out of the Great Depression, not FDR. People took care of people in need without government involvement. That's a fact.
the fact is that prior to social security half of the nations elderly lived in extreme poverty, 40% of women over the age of 65 were homeless. You seem to have this fantasy about families pulling together and taking care of everyone. Most families didn't have room for their elderly parents much less the elderly of their extended families. Most families couldn't afford to feed another adult. in 1935 alone more than 250,000 elderly were "dropped off" at poor houses by their families. Ref Committee on Economic security 1936
 

rainee

New member
That any two consenting adults have the right to enter into a marriage contract, with all of the rights and responsibilities it entails, including life insurance, employee health insurance, power of attorney, DNR, etc etc.



That's a good start.
Funding should never have become the deciding factor for who can run for office in this country.
We've spent many generations telling kids that "anyone can be president," but the current massive, convoluted system of money-funneling makes that a gigantic lie.

"Campaign contributions" and the buying power of the 1% now decide that only the already-wealthy can run for any office above the municipal level, which creates a self-defeating election for the rest of us no matter who wins.

In British terms, all we have are two Houses of Lords in Congress, who have set up a system in which only their financial peers even have a chance of getting in the door.



Have to chime in here, because I addressed it in my initial post.
We have forced health INSURANCE right now, which means we are forced into a bureaucratic system of deductibles, copays, and other monies being thrown around that in no way solves the problems we already had, and creates many more.
What we need in order to join the rest of the civilized world is forced government health CARE.
That means nationalized health and pharmaceutical industries, whose services are offered free of charge to citizens in need because they are government employees paid by taxes.
Yes, you are right Buzz! Thanx for catching my mistake.

Excellent posts btw and your points are right on to me
 
the fact is that prior to social security half of the nations elderly lived in extreme poverty, 40% of women over the age of 65 were homeless. You seem to have this fantasy about families pulling together and taking care of everyone. Most families didn't have room for their elderly parents much less the elderly of their extended families. Most families couldn't afford to feed another adult. in 1935 alone more than 250,000 elderly were "dropped off" at poor houses by their families. Ref Committee on Economic security 1936
We have way more poor now. I suggest you read something besides government propaganda.
 

resodko

BANNED
Banned
Why do we spend more on our national defense than the next ten countries spend on theirs combined?

:think:

maybe it's 'cause the next ten countries are rinky-dink little wanna-be super powers, while we're the real deal?

354946_orig.jpeg
 

rexlunae

New member
Another cult trying to absolve man of sin, making man god. A strike against absolute morality.

If morality were absolute, it wouldn't be so fragile, or so mutable.


Supreme Court says different.

We are going to disagree here and I'm not up for a debate. Sorry.

What part of "No" left you with the impression that I was looking for a debate? You are wrong, and if you are trying to understand my perspective, as you suggested in the OP, you should try to look at it from my perspective. You asked a question, I answered it, but you don't seem to be in a listening mood.
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
You've never had a proper empire !

We invaded just about everywhere

BRITAIN_2388153b.jpg


A warped pride in the fact we used to be bad *** isn't one of my more liberal traits :)

:think:

maybe it's 'cause the next ten countries are rinky-dink little wanna-be super powers, while we're the real deal?

354946_orig.jpeg
 
Top