Tendo City

Quote:WASHINGTON — A recent study tying obese patients to skyrocketing Medicare and Medicaid costs is the “smoking gun” lawyers and bureaucrats need to drive the fast food industry into submission, critics of the report say.

“You now have a report that says the taxpayer is being hurt because of obesity. Ah, now the federal government will have to step in to protect people from their habits,” said Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center (search), a civil libertarian watchdog group based in Virginia.

“There are a lot of forces at work here — some will work in the courts, some through legislation," he said. "What you’ll find is the report is the smoking gun for all these forces to use."

The report, published in the May/June issue of Health Affairs, contends that obese and overweight Americans — now more than half the U.S. population — contribute as much as $93 billion to health costs each year, with public Medicare and Medicaid programs footing the better half of the supersized bill.

Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (search), the data, based on a sample of 9,867 adults, measure the health care costs for patients of normal weight compared to those categorized as overweight and obese. A patient's weight category is derived by their body mass index rating, which is the federal government’s official method for defining obesity.

The study’s authors said the findings are indeed an important signal to government that something needs to be done about the growing waistline of the nation.

“If people want to be 200 pounds, then that’s their choice, but ultimately, if the taxpayer is paying for those choices, certainly, in my mind, that is where the justification for government involvement comes from,” said economist Eric Finkelstein, who conducted the research with Ian Fiebelkorn of RTI International (search) and Guijing Wang of the CDC.

The study found that Medicare pays out $1,486 more per obese patient than per healthy weight patient. Medicaid pays out $864 more for obese patients and private insurance pays out $423 more.

The authors suggest the increase may be in part because low-income individuals who qualify for government assistance may engage in riskier health behaviors — like eating junk food.

Finkelstein told Foxnews.com that he is unsure whether heavy regulation, taxes or litigation against the food industry is the answer.

“We’re already concerned about how our studies are used,” Finkelstein said. “But I would like to see people more physically fit and I think that certain strategies that promote that are worth considering.”

But according to critics, those strategies are more than just feel-good campaigns about exercise and healthy eating. They include a massive regulatory and litigitory machine ready to launch a three-pronged strike against the fast food industry through private and public litigation as well as regulation.

“There are a lot of people excited about this study,” said Mike Barita, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Consumer Freedom (search), which has also been tracking lawsuits launched against McDonald’s Corp., the fast food giant blamed for deliberately encouraging excessive consumption of unhealthy and fattening food.

“It’s all about their new cash-cow — attorneys have dollar signs dancing in their eyes,” he said.

Barita said legal heavy hitters like George Washington University professor John F. Banzhaf III, who played a big role in the massive tobacco settlements with the states, are now advising attorneys and plaintiffs in the fight against fast food.

“We’re going to find a judge and we’re going to find a jury and we’re going to start winning these suits,” Banzhaf told Foxnews.com.

Banzhaf said he fully supports a formula against obesity targeting special taxes on fast food, higher insurance premiums for obese patients, tougher regulations on food manufacturers and school vendors as well as litigation against fast food proprietors. Banzhaf is participating in a June conference to help design legal strategies against fast food establishments, school boards and food manufacturers.

“All of those things are going to have an immediate and direct effect. We can at least hold down the increase in the epidemic,” he said.

The Department of Health and Human Services declined official comment, but one source there said, “We are totally against litigation.”

DeWeese said studies like this one will help the federal government overcome a final obstacle to controlling Americans, even what they can and cannot eat.

“What they are saying is that none of us is responsible for anything — we’re too stupid to decide for ourselves,” he said. “There is no free market left.”

Absolutely ridiculous. The LAST thing we need is the government intruding even more into our lives. Have we now become so stupidly liberal that we'd allow the government to control what we eat? Did it never occur to anyone that in most cases an obese person has to take a physical before they are allowed insurance, and that obese policyholders always pay higher premiums because of their weight?

This shit makes me so angry. The government has to raise our children, stop us from smoking, and now has to portion our meals for us. Fucking nonsense!

Mh, great. I had to had to write a text at school on precisely this subject a few months ago. Was more an exercise in literary skill than actually discussing the subject though.

It is a problem that people need to pay for obese people fucking around with their health, but the solution shouldn't have to be rabid taxation on every level. I don't think privatization is the answer either. I really do not know how Medicare works in the USA, but perhaps its costs should be scaled, based on a) of course the individual's income, and b) his or her medical needs, instead of only a).

Basically what they are doing is using the fast food industry as a scape-goat. Maybe the fast food industry has contributed to people becoming obese, but they aren't forcing people to become fat it is still that person's decision how much they eat.

While Health safety should be inspected at fast food chains, I dont feel they have the right to tell us what to eat and what not too.
I can see a program educating kids on healthy eating which does exist in some regions.Which would save future money on health care.

If your kid gets obese from eating to much junk , were the fuck were you doing when this was happening?Its called poor parental supervision.

If you get fat from eating to many burgers go see a dietrician or maybe even a Phychiatrist while your at it.Its like blaiming the Gun after you just shooting yourself in the leg.

Sueing Companies will do nothing but waste more money.

I think what needs to be done is get people to take responsibility for thier actions , Stop Blaiming everyone but yourself for your errors.

We didnt have these problems 50 years ago , even though KFC and mc donalds existed back then.They also had alot of Sugary products at that time.

But the people at that time were better raised by good parenting and didnt have the big loss in family values we see today.

First, one reason the government exists is to save us from ourselves... and its a good mission, because people sure can't do it themselves.

Quote:Banzhaf said he fully supports a formula against obesity targeting special taxes on fast food, higher insurance premiums for obese patients, tougher regulations on food manufacturers and school vendors as well as litigation against fast food proprietors. Banzhs participating in a June conference to help design legal strategies against fast food establishments, school boards and food manufacturers.

I don't see anything there that is objectionable... just some things to slow down America's obesity epidemic... it is very clear that people will not do it by themselves in large enough numbers. This is just doing some things to encourage good things... and make money off the people who keep doing less good stuff...

Look at what that article says. It says nothing about CONTROLLING what you eat! Try reading for once!

Look. I think those people suing fast food chains for making them fat are stupid too. But this? Totally different...

Anyway, there are already state taxes in many places on junk food and snacks... I know we have one. Why not a federal one?

As for ASM you make no sense. 50 years ago fast food was new, there weren't many fast food chains, and portions were WAY, WAY smaller.

Look at the soda. 1940 or 50s? 8 ounce bottle.

Today? 20 ounce bottle.

Fries... lets just say that back then there was no "super sizing".

Case closed.

Oh for the love of God. What are you, a damn cyborg? People say liberals are bleeding hearts, I'm starting to think quite the contrary myself.

"We must regulate the nutritional sector to ensure maximum productivity of our human resources. Bzt. You will be assimilated."

Well you are like one of those dolls where you push a button and they say canned phrases... the same ones, year after year...

"Tax cuts for rich people!"

"Increase military spending!"

"No new ideas!"

"NO NEW IDEAS!!"

"cuts in education and the environment"

etc. (start from the top!)

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
First, one reason the government exists is to save us from ourselves... and its a good mission, because people sure can't do it themselves.



I don't see anything there that is objectionable... just some things to slow down America's obesity epidemic... it is very clear that people will not do it by themselves in large enough numbers. This is just doing some things to encourage good things... and make money off the people who keep doing less good stuff...

Look at what that article says. It says nothing about CONTROLLING what you eat! Try reading for once!

Look. I think those people suing fast food chains for making them fat are stupid too. But this? Totally different...

Anyway, there are already state taxes in many places on junk food and snacks... I know we have one. Why not a federal one?

As for ASM you make no sense. 50 years ago fast food was new, there weren't many fast food chains, and portions were WAY, WAY smaller.

Look at the soda. 1940 or 50s? 8 ounce bottle.

Today? 20 ounce bottle.

Fries... lets just say that back then there was no "super sizing".

Case closed.

But why should it be the government that does this? If people can't or won't do it themselves, that's their own business. Remember how we have the freedom of life, liberty and happiness? Why can't a person be happy and fat? The bleeding hell with the government taxing certain items to make people not eat them. That is completely against the free market system America has thrived on, and it's one more step towards becoming a doomed socialist state. The government has no business telling people how they should live, unless their lifestyle directly harms others. And the worst a fat person can do is be unpleasant to look at.

We need LESS government control over our lives! Not more!

And you cannot honestly say you're not one of those dolls yourself:

"Rich people are evil!"

"God has no place in our world!"

"America is fascist!"

"Money solves everything!"

"Racism isn't evil if it's against white men!"

"Right away, Comrade!"

I don't say many of those things...

Quote:The bleeding hell with the government taxing certain items to make people not eat them. That is completely against the free market system America has thrived on, and it's one more step towards becoming a doomed socialist state.

Uhh... BUT WE ALREADY HAVE LOTS OF TAXES THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR!

The 'snack tax' that Maine, like lots of states, has isn't destroying capitalism. :)

And its not about them being fat... its about how because they are fat, it costs the state lots more money in healthcare costs than it does for healthy people. As the article said.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I don't say many of those things...



Uhh... BUT WE ALREADY HAVE LOTS OF TAXES THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR!

The 'snack tax' that Maine, like lots of states, has isn't destroying capitalism. :)

And its not about them being fat... its about how because they are fat, it costs the state lots more money in healthcare costs than it does for healthy people. As the article said.

Right. The solution to that is for insurance companies to raise premiums for fat people, and for the state to stop providing free non-emergency health care to poor people. Everytime some homeless bum drinks himself stupid, it's us taxpaying, premium-paying people that foot the bill, and that costs the state much, much more than whatever extra needs fat people require.

And if you don't think tax hikes will ruin capitalism, just look at what it's done to the cigarette industry, another major fuckarow on the government's part. They claim it's so deadly dangerous but they won't outright ban it because they can tax it up the wazoo, banned goods make no money.

The point is, the government should have no say in what we eat, and taxing certain food items IS the government trying to force us not to eat particular items.

Wait, wait... forcing poor people to die or live in bad health as well as no money will solve problems? Uhh...

What we need is healthcare for everyone, not healthcare for only richer people!

Is it expensive? Sure. But its a absolutely vital service that practially every other democratic nation in the world provides to its citizens...

And we can do without more tax cuts for the top 5%.

And sure I'd LOVE it if they could ban cigarettes! That'd be great! But its politically impossible, so high taxes are the next best thing...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon


What we need is healthcare for everyone, not healthcare for only richer people!

It's called CANADA! Move there!

In Canada cigarattes are about 12 bucks a pack, and the size of a chewing tobacco can got smaller by about a quarter and the price went up 50%. As you can see, the government is trying to do a lot to stop the nation from smoking. (not to mention that it is illegal to advertise cigarettes, and most restaraunts in Edmonton cannot let minors if there is a smoking section...new law). It's not about doing whatever you want to do, it's trying to stop people from doing things that they shouldn't be doing. That's how our government works, and it is something to be proud of.

They should be doing that for fast food, too. Like, making people who appear to be fat pay 20% extra or something like that (although, maybe not so blunt:)). I semi-agree with what your government is trying to do...maybe not trying to completely eliminate fast food, but enough so obesity will decrease a lot.

I'll say this, a happy fit and slim person has a lot more fulfilling life than a happy fat person! (from what I've seen)

Yeah, all of those are very good ideas...

And I wish we had a healthcare system as good as Canada's... it'd be better for about 90% of the people in this country, minimum...

As for smoking, in Maine its illegal to smoke in any restaurant. Period. And for bars and lounges, only ones that don't allow people under 21 in (and maybe don't have food, I'm not certain) can have any smoking. Its a fairly new law... but a very good one. :)

Um, are you aware that some people actually NEED a high fat diet due to a very ineffeciently high metabolism? Fat is not poison! It's actually needed to live, though in some people's cases the amount needed is MUCH smaller than what they take.

Look ABF, it's VERY stupid to be doing something like this. If someone wants to ruin their own body, let them. It's not FORCING them to be unhealthy, it's just letting them be unhealthy. Let people learn the hard way instead of badgering them with meaningless laws that take resourcse away from stuff that actually should be managed. Protecting people from OTHERS is what government is for. Protect us from ourselves? If I am stupid enough to eat a razor I deserve what happens. Allow people to live their lives, and even if their choices end up being huge mistakes, it would still have been their choice in the end! What's wrong with allowing humanity to be human?

Again though, I am a VERY freakishly skinny person who eats fatty foods all the time. I actually NEED to eat it just to keep from getting dangerously skinny. I only recently managed to break the 100 lb mark on my scale. I may be an extreme example, but my point is that fat should not be treated like cigs, something which can only be viewed as unhealthy, and thus shouldn't have similar laws.

I'll step out of this now. This was just too stupid a thing for me to stay quiet on. So so stupid, and I'd wager that it is factualy stupid and not just my opinion.

ABF wants basically a socialist state, where the government controls every aspect of your life. Before, the government decided that smoking should stop, so they went after the tobacco industry. Now they think that overeating should stop, so they'll go after fast-food. How long will it be before they decide that computers and videogames prevent us from getting necessary amounts of exercise and they lobby to eliminate them too? What's to stop them from doing it when liberals like yourself only try to encourage federal intrusion into private lives?

It's more hypocritical than funny how you can decry the Patriot Act for it's federal intrusiveness, yet you're all for something like this.

And last, Canada's health care system is ATROCIOUS, and it's the last thing we need here. We don't need the drastic tax increase that would be required to support such idiocy, we don't need the inevitable decline in quality and shortage of doctors that Canada has. What we need are tighter insurance controls, and we need to stop babying poor people so much. It's because poor people abuse the free health care they have now that insurance premiums keep going up, because hospitals, especially in urban areas, are so often inundated with non-emergency cases from the poor, who do not pay a dime, but use supplies and doctor's time and drive up HUGE bills that the rest of us have to foot.

It's not that hard to get medical insurance. Practically every job above the fast food level offers it in some form.

Quote:Originally posted by Fittisize
It's called CANADA! Move there!

In Canada cigarattes are about 12 bucks a pack, and the size of a chewing tobacco can got smaller by about a quarter and the price went up 50%. As you can see, the government is trying to do a lot to stop the nation from smoking. (not to mention that it is illegal to advertise cigarettes, and most restaraunts in Edmonton cannot let minors if there is a smoking section...new law). It's not about doing whatever you want to do, it's trying to stop people from doing things that they shouldn't be doing. That's how our government works, and it is something to be proud of.

They should be doing that for fast food, too. Like, making people who appear to be fat pay 20% extra or something like that (although, maybe not so blunt:)). I semi-agree with what your government is trying to do...maybe not trying to completely eliminate fast food, but enough so obesity will decrease a lot.

I'll say this, a happy fit and slim person has a lot more fulfilling life than a happy fat person! (from what I've seen)

PLEASE, ABF, Move to Canada!

I would not be proud of the government forcing me to change my lifestyle. That is totalitarianism. It's worthy of nothing but shame, even if the idea is noble, because we're supposed to be living in a free society, one where the individual can make his own choices within reason. Actions like this are completely against freedom. The government telling you what to eat and what not to eat is no better than the government telling you what religion to follow or what you are allowed to say and what you are not allowed to say. I don't know about you, but I'd rather the government keep their damn hands out of my personal life and concentrate on more important issues.

And I agree that being slim makes a person happier. This I know from experience. But I got slimmer by my own volition. I would strenuously object to the government forcing me or anyone else to do what I did by my own free will.

What? Where the hell do I promote tax cuts for rich people and the other lunacies you're talking about? I think I talked about increasing military spending once, and trust me, if you'd seen what our military's like (choppers crashing into the sea frequently, Vietnam era tanks, etc.) you'd want that too.

New ideas? I've been living in magical welfareland all my life! The only "old ideas" here are those you're promoting! I'm tired of government regulating people's lives, that's it! It's something I refuse to stand for, and something I will not accept, period!

The government is here to ensure the rights of its citizens, those which are written in the constitution of the country, are respected. That is how the constitutional republic or in the case of Canada constitutional monarchy functions. That is its sole mission, and the only mandate which the representatives of the people have received from said people. The delegating of all moral functions to the state simply does not work within the democratic model as far as I am concerned, because a group of people does not have moral authority over another group of people simply because of the fact that they form a majority. That is Imperium in its purest form: the imposition of the will of a certain population group upon another. You who are so anti-imperialist should certainly understand that, ABF. You were just proning those very ideas a few weeks ago.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
First, one reason the government exists is to save us from ourselves... and its a good mission, because people sure can't do it themselves.



I don't see anything there that is objectionable... just some things to slow down America's obesity epidemic... it is very clear that people will not do it by themselves in large enough numbers. This is just doing some things to encourage good things... and make money off the people who keep doing less good stuff...

Look at what that article says. It says nothing about CONTROLLING what you eat! Try reading for once!

Look. I think those people suing fast food chains for making them fat are stupid too. But this? Totally different...

Anyway, there are already state taxes in many places on junk food and snacks... I know we have one. Why not a federal one?

As for ASM you make no sense. 50 years ago fast food was new, there weren't many fast food chains, and portions were WAY, WAY smaller.

Look at the soda. 1940 or 50s? 8 ounce bottle.

Today? 20 ounce bottle.

Fries... lets just say that back then there was no "super sizing".

Case closed.

ABF Shut the hell up!
What I meant was that back then people didnt over indulge like we do now , Sure they had Junk food back then , Candy was the patatoe chips of the day since it was so cheap to get.

But unlike today, people were more active and had to work harder for the same goods we have today. Big gut buster meals were only a yearly treat not somthing they had ever single day.Yet obesity did exist then too , maybe not as much.

I think its people lifestyles and I think society and bassically the modern lazyness of not wanting to simpily go and cut their own grass and having to pay someone to do it for them ect...

So I think blaiming Fast food solely for obesity is very short sighted.

A black falcon , If you think I make no sense then why do you read it? I do not enjoy put downs about my IQ or my writing ,
I may have Austism but I am not any less entitled to voicing my opinion then you are.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltaii
PLEASE, ABF, Move to Canada!

I would not be proud of the government forcing me to change my lifestyle. That is totalitarianism. It's worthy of nothing but shame, even if the idea is noble, because [b]we're supposed to be living in a free society, one where the individual can make his own choices within reason. Actions like this are completely against freedom. The government telling you what to eat and what not to eat is no better than the government telling you what religion to follow or what you are allowed to say and what you are not allowed to say. I don't know about you, but I'd rather the government keep their damn hands out of my personal life and concentrate on more important issues.

And I agree that being slim makes a person happier. This I know from experience. But I got slimmer by my own volition. I would strenuously object to the government forcing me or anyone else to do what I did by my own free will. [/B]

All of you bring some good points , But I think the goverment most first see what the people feel before they jump in and make a bunch of laws.

Truth is why doesnt the goverment offer free Exercise programs for citizens of all ages? Maybe even tax cuts for those who regularly workout once a week.
Instead of 100$ bucks a month off your wallet to go a local gym, as here in canada its frequiently way to cold to go for a walk outside in the winter.

No they will never think of that ,they are more interested it making money off people then actually helping them , The canadian goverment makes billions of dollars off taxes from cigerattes even though they know they have also poisoned the lungs and cancerd the lives of their citizens in the process.They keep kicking us back in the ass by cutting health care too.
The government makes a shit load of money of Gasoline prices regardless of how it effects the economy of everyone else.
my big question is were the fuck is the money going?

Not all poor people abuse the health care system,That is stereotyping and scape goating.
Should a pregnant woman be denied the right to have a safe birth at hospistal just because she doesnt have the proper insurance , Should a single mother be denied health care for her children because she can only work part time since she cant afford a babbysitter ,

Should a homeless person be left to die because he has no money?

Should a little boy in a middle class family by denied his life because his family cant afford the 150 thousand dollar transplant, that is not coverd by his dads insurance?

Even though our health care is in a rough state atleast it isnt limited only to the Elite, the rich. Any of its faults are the result of poor goverment management and spending, Take that one billion dollar bail out away from Nortell or those freebies they toss to the rich and put in the health care like it was sopposed to be.

Offer free secondary education to docters and forgive their debts.

I dont vote since their all the same group of liars,The make false promises and just let us down after they've been elected. Infact my father haisnt voted since Piere Trudeau Left politics he was the only Leader we had who never let us down.

Quote:Originally posted by Weltaii
Canada's health care system is ATROCIOUS, and it's the last thing we need here. We don't need the drastic tax increase that would be required to support such idiocy

Sure, a huge tax increase sure SOUNDS bad, but think of this: about 40% of a family's yearly income in Canada goes to taxes for welfare, health care etc. That is much larger as compared to the USA. But do you see hundreds of homeless bums running the streets of large, Canadian cities? No! But you see it in spades in the American ones! Too many homeless people in the USA, just because the greedy American, like you, does not want to support such helpful programs as welfare, and free health care. It closes the gap a LOT from the rich to poor, and makes a country a MUCH more pleasant place to live in. Do you honestly like seeing a drunken homeless person living in a box on the street because he couldn't afford the money for rent, and couldn't get any extra help to get him back on his feet? How much more greedy can you get??? Just letting a person die on the streets because you don't want to dip into your income to help out people like that. Makes no sense in my opinion.

Acting for the better of the group makes a much better environment for everybody than acting for the better of yourselves. I'm not saying that I am a Communist, because I surely am not. But it is much more comforting to see a person on their feet and having a prosperous life than seeing him on the streets because of a few bad choices along the way.

Which raises another point. You say that if a person is going to do something stupid, you should just let him go do it without trying to stop him, because if he is going to something dumb he deserves the consequenses. Well, so something like homlessness doesn't become a problem, you should be doing things to try and prevent those mistakes and make up for them, should they happen. That way everybody is much more equal and the rich/poor gap is closed a lot.

Free health care and welfare only add to a country, because it allows everybody to have a more equal lifestyle. Poor people need a roof over their head just as much as a rich person. And a poor person would need kimo therapy (should they ever get cancer) just as much as a rich person. A person's health shouldn't be determined by how much money they have in the bank.

Health care.

First, America is not about to become a welfare state like Europe and Canada. It just won't happen, unfortunately. So what could happen? What should happen? What should happen is, somehow, get healthcare for everyone. It is tragic that 40 million Americans have no healthcare. Fourty MILLION! That's a lot! Sure, for the top 5 or 10% we have the best healthcare in the world. But for the people in the lower levels, we have the worst healthcare in the industrialized world.

And you want to make it WORSE by actually REVOKING healthcare from some of the few poor people who actually have any? Are you sane? As said already, its a false assumption that people like you have that poor people are stupid and lazy and waste money and the state's time. That is just false. Most of those people try but can't get anywhere... and have nowhere to turn when someone gets sick. As Fittisize said, what a great society THAT leads to.

Next, what can we do? Well, somehow get healthcare to everyone. Every Democratic candidate for president supports this idea... sure, the costs for their plans are all over the map, but all have a plan.

And how much will it cost? Well, even the most expensive one (Gephardt's) doesn't require any new taxes. All it requires is to get rid of the Bush tax cuts. Thats it.

And for the less expensive plans other candidates have, all those require is getting rid of the part of the tax cuts that hasn't come into effect. Or just the part for the top 5%. Just that part alone would fund a large percentage of the program... and its not like that tax cut was needed anyway.

Because its just not acceptible to allow the current situation, where millions have no health care and millions more have such a small amount of it that they can't cover much of anything when they get sick. We've got to do something! And ignore people with delusions that poor people are all evil money wasters like Weltall here.

Quote:ABF Shut the hell up!
What I meant was that back then people didnt over indulge like we do now , Sure they had Junk food back then , Candy was the patatoe chips of the day since it was so cheap to get.

But unlike today, people were more active and had to work harder for the same goods we have today. Big gut buster meals were only a yearly treat not somthing they had ever single day.Yet obesity did exist then too , maybe not as much.

I think its people lifestyles and I think society and bassically the modern lazyness of not wanting to simpily go and cut their own grass and having to pay someone to do it for them ect...

So I think blaiming Fast food solely for obesity is very short sighted.

And what I meant is that your hypothesis is flawed. As I said already. PORTIONS! PORTIONS! When you give people three times (or more) more food for the same price they WILL GET FATTER!

And as I also said. PEOPLE EAT MORE JUNK FOOD NOW! There is more of it available. And its cheap. 50 years ago the situation was quite different... it just wasn't like this. Thinking it was is just not accurate. We have more fast food places. More junk food. And significantly bigger portions-- not just fast food, of course. Normal restaurants are also giving much, much larger portions of food then ever before... and, because of increasing technology and changing society, exercising less.

It all adds up.

Quote:What? Where the hell do I promote tax cuts for rich people and the other lunacies you're talking about? I think I talked about increasing military spending once, and trust me, if you'd seen what our military's like (choppers crashing into the sea frequently, Vietnam era tanks, etc.) you'd want that too.

You're conservative. Tax cuts rigged for the rich have been their conerstone philosophy since the '80s. And they always support more money for unnecessary tanks... sure the military needs money. Just not as much as we give it...

Quote:New ideas? I've been living in magical welfareland all my life! The only "old ideas" here are those you're promoting! I'm tired of government regulating people's lives, that's it! It's something I refuse to stand for, and something I will not accept, period!

'conservative' means 'not wanting change'. And the policies you support prove that the definition is correct. As for government regulation, well I do have faith in the government... sure it does bad things, but it does so many more good ones that I support regulating things. Government is here to control the excesses that people would do without it... I happen to think that it'd be a bad world if companies could do whatever they wanted. First, they would merge so two or three companies would own essentially everything in each industry. Then, they would be able to control prices, pollute and destroy what is left of the environment, and all kinds of other bad things that we must keep from happening.

Government, of course, is also there to help the people... not let them starve or die or sickness or things like that... it IS supposed to be there for the people... no matter what people like you or Weltall say. This of course means both providing services and both collecting and trying not to waste money...

In this issue (doing things to reduce the fatness and overeating epidemics), its in both the governments' interest and the peoples' intrest that something is done. It isn't good to keep paying out huge sums in healthcare bills for fat people when its a treatable condition. And as that article said, fat people make the government pay more than thinner people. A lot more. That is not a good condition for the government to be in! So things, within bounds, should be done.

Now, I agree that the government should no laws saying "you must be this thin" or "you cannot eat those foods". That is unnacceptable... as several people said, these aren't unhealthy on a level like smoking. As DJ shows for some people they even aren't unhealthy... :) But for most they are. And for the tens of millions (or maybe over a hundred million) of people who are overweight, there are certain LIMITED measures that would help.

One thing though. You seem to be reading WAY TOO MUCH INTO THIS! This ISN'T some huge issue which is trying to ban fatty foods! Its just some small things to either reduce or try to reduce all those big healthcare bills. I don't think anyone wants so much of their taxes going to pay the healthcare bills of people who are making everyone else pay a lot more because of their health problems related to weight...

Snack taxes, higher insurance premiums for heavier people, trying to get junk food makers and fast food companies to reduce bad fats in their products (especially getting rid of trans fats), getting healthier school lunches for kids... I see nothing objectionable there!

Quote:Health care.

First, America is not about to become a welfare state like Europe and Canada. It just won't happen, unfortunately. So what could happen? What should happen? What should happen is, somehow, get healthcare for everyone. It is tragic that 40 million Americans have no healthcare. Fourty MILLION! That's a lot! Sure, for the top 5 or 10% we have the best healthcare in the world. But for the people in the lower levels, we have the worst healthcare in the industrialized world.

Welfare State? !!!!! I dont know what you mean exactly by that, But if you think we hand Welfare like cup cakes your sadly mistaken.

Not helping the Poor is actually more costly then helping them, If the poor didnt get finacial asistance if they cant afford to make ends meet on part time job working at mc donalds , People would riot and the gaps between rich and poor would increase. Causing choas not seen since the Roman empire.

In regards to health care , You should have a health care program availible for people who dont have proper coverage , By offering them a medicare system like we do in canada were you pay taxes to get coverage. So people who have good coverage thanks to job benifits wont have to pay medicare tax and only those who need a medicare program can pay taxes every month for it.

I do not recall labeling myself a conservative, and I would certainly hate that sharing an idea with a certain group means I must share all their ideas.

A wise man once said, before getting hanged, something like this to his son:

"Mon fils, n'accepte jamais les idées préconçues en bloc, mais façonne plutôt ton propre opinion."

More or less, that means to never accept ideas in block, and to never join any "label" or political group. What you win in power you lose in individualism.

I would also like to remind you that I am not American, and that the "conservatives" in this country are much more center-focused. They've never even proposed anything such as tax cuts, not for the rich or anyone. European 'conservatives' (Christian-Democrats, Chirac's Gaullists) are much the same. Just because a party isn't outright bloodred doesn't make them reactionaries.

I think it's great that by the fact that I prone personal responsibility and individualism, I get labeled a conservative reactionary. Shows where your ilk is headed.

Sure, I'm reading too much into this, I should just go to bed and not mind... then when I wake up in 20 years and smoking is banned, a big mac costs 30 bucks and God knows what other goofy laws are enacted, THEN I should start worrying a little.

Welfare state... where the government pays for healthcare for everyone... like Europe and Canada... its a better system than ours for a lot of people... sure if you can afford great healthcare here its some of the best in the world but if you can't you'd be better off in almost any other first world nation, that's for sure. Until we fix the problem that is...

And N-Man, I called you conservative because liberals generally don't advocate small government and rolling back government protections and laws...

There was a time not so long ago we had been ranked the best health care in the world by the U.N.
Now we have lost that priviledge , but we still have the joy of still saying ours is better then your's since the american Health care is still trailing us.

Its the cut backs and the continuing abyss of Federal neglect that ruined our system, But thankfully due to Public demand the goverment is actually been told to shut the hell up about "we will look into it or we need more research" walls and barriers they've been spamming for 5 years.

Now Things are starting to improve again since any party who dares cut funding to health care gets booted next election.Thats a lesson the Alliance party faced when they tried to introduce american style health proposals which were rejected by the canadian public.

The NDP blasted the Liberals since they said thier were agiast two tier american health care style , but their are a growing amount of private ,visa credit card or pay in cash health clinics to get cat scans and MRI all over canada.

Some of the provinces have made so genius plans to attract skilled docters to their provinces AKA $$$ cash.

And there aren't only conservatives and liberals, because if there was, we'd be fucked. Both groups have their flaws. For example, I agree with liberal positions on same-sex couples and abortion. I agree with conservative positions on firearm ownership and general non-interventionism. My position is basically that the government should piss off entirely.

Forgive my successive quoting, but yet another wise man (a much more ancient one this time) said:

"Why do we need laws? Good men know to follow them even if they do not exist, and bad men will always break them."

What are you then, Libertarian?

Quote:"Why do we need laws? Good men know to follow them even if they do not exist, and bad men will always break them."

Exactly why we need laws like the ones this thread discusses.

Seeing as this has turned into another 1000 words/reply liberal v. conservative thread, I'm going to break the mold and completely ignore everything that has been said.

Weltaii-What do you feel about drugs?

ABF- Doesn't corruption exist at all levels? Isn't corruption of government just as bad as corruption in business? And finally, a toughie- is it corruption when a mother who is on food stamps and welfare goes out and buys a Prada bag and Gucci shoes?

Quote:Weltaii-What do you feel about drugs?

I, at least, am against legalizing them.

Quote:ABF- Doesn't corruption exist at all levels? Isn't corruption of government just as bad as corruption in business? And finally, a toughie- is it corruption when a mother who is on food stamps and welfare goes out and buys a Prada bag and Gucci shoes?

Sure, the government is corrupt. But unlike companies, there are ways to deal with it... change administrations, vote for different people... with companies there isn't anything you can do except watch the (bad) results.

And I don't know if that's corruption... its not using your resources wisely, for sure, though.

Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
[B]Not all poor people abuse the health care system,That is stereotyping and scape goating.
Should a pregnant woman be denied the right to have a safe birth at hospistal just because she doesnt have the proper insurance , Should a single mother be denied health care for her children because she can only work part time since she cant afford a babbysitter.

You misunderstood me. I said NON-EMERGENCY healthcare should not be free for anyone. I'm talking colds, flu, shit like that. They can go in there and get treatment for free for things like that when all they need is a fucking Sudafed tablet. Because they instead go to the doctor, it runs up a bill of hundreds of dollars.

But seriously, our local hospital, the Medical College of Virginia, one of the world's largest teaching hospitals, has lost literally millions of dollars because of abuse by uninsured patients. They labeled it as one of the main reasons they had to cut staff and eliminate beds, because these people were running up huge bills for stupid shit like stomach flu and heartburn or the big ones like ODs and drunkeness. It doesn't help that MCV is not in a great part of town.

Quote:Should a homeless person be left to die because he has no money?

Should a little boy in a middle class family by denied his life because his family cant afford the 150 thousand dollar transplant, that is not coverd by his dads insurance?

Absolutely not. But I think if a homeless person can't get a job and get some kind of medical insurance, they're a waste anyway. The unemployment rate in VA is under 4%, meaning you really have to either be such an asshole that you can't hold a job, or you have to basically WANT to be jobless.

You have a point about the little boy scenario, but there is usually a way they'll work with you on payments. It's really uncommon for a patient that needs life-saving treatment to be turned away, as it's against medical ethics to allow a patient to die.

Quote: Sure, a huge tax increase sure SOUNDS bad, but think of this: about 40% of a family's yearly income in Canada goes to taxes for welfare, health care etc. That is much larger as compared to the USA. But do you see hundreds of homeless bums running the streets of large, Canadian cities? No! But you see it in spades in the American ones! Too many homeless people in the USA, just because the greedy American, like you, does not want to support such helpful programs as welfare, and free health care. It closes the gap a LOT from the rich to poor, and makes a country a MUCH more pleasant place to live in. Do you honestly like seeing a drunken homeless person living in a box on the street because he couldn't afford the money for rent, and couldn't get any extra help to get him back on his feet? How much more greedy can you get??? Just letting a person die on the streets because you don't want to dip into your income to help out people like that. Makes no sense in my opinion.

And what the hell's wrong with me not wanting to share the money I make? I have to EARN my goddamn money! I have to bust my ass five days a week to get what money I get, and there's no reason whatsoever why I should be compelled to give it to people who don't want to get off their lazy asses and get a job like I do. Hell, I could be poor if I chose to. I could quit working and be a slob that siphons off the hard-working people in America, but I have enough dignity that I'm going to earn a living the honest way. I'm sorry, but I don't owe poor people anything, and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty that they don't have what I have because they don't work for it. We live in a society where you become only what you try to accomplish. If you don't have a work ethic, you're going to be poor, you deserve to be poor, and you won't get the damnedest drop of sympathy for me because I'm too busy earning a wage, and if they don't want to work and they want to be destitute, they don't deserve a single red cent from me or anyone else.

In America, you're only poor if you want to be. There are so many opportunities to achieve a higher standard of living that only those who won't try won't achieve it.

Quote:Acting for the better of the group makes a much better environment for everybody than acting for the better of yourselves. I'm not saying that I am a Communist, because I surely am not. But it is much more comforting to see a person on their feet and having a prosperous life than seeing him on the streets because of a few bad choices along the way.

Well, that's the consequence of a free society. No one said you're guaranteed a perfect life. You only get what you put into it. And I'm not particularly caring about helping groups of people because I don't make a whole lot myself. But I'm working at freaking Wal-Mart, which takes zero skills to do, and I make enough to live reasonably comfortable. No reason whatsoever why the homeless cannot do the same. In a society of free enterprise, you can suffer for poor decisions, but you also have the chance to capitalize and bring yourself out of it. People in America have gone from rags to riches before, even more from rags to comfort. Since our society places more emphasis on individual freedoms than anyone else, it also emphasizes indivdual responsibility. I find it FAR more comforting to see a person on their feet by the efforts of their hard work than I do because they recieve perpetual handouts.

Quote:Which raises another point. You say that if a person is going to do something stupid, you should just let him go do it without trying to stop him, because if he is going to something dumb he deserves the consequenses. Well, so something like homlessness doesn't become a problem, you should be doing things to try and prevent those mistakes and make up for them, should they happen. That way everybody is much more equal and the rich/poor gap is closed a lot.

But people AREN'T equal. Some people are more intelligent than others, some are smarter than others, and some are more industrious than others. Those people deserve to live better than others because of their talents, and they deserve to be rich as well. Being rich is not a bad thing by a long shot, and it does not oblige them to share their wealth. I sincerely believe that people should face the consequences of their actions because that's a factor of freedom: The freedom to try and the freedom to fail. Fear of failure sometimes discourages people from trying, sometimes it makes them try all the harder. But some people will fail, and should fail, because they are not worthy of success, for varied reasons. Maybe they can't get along with others at work, or they steal, or they're drug addicts or whatever. It is a problem, but it's up to the person with the problem to do something about it because no one else can, and no one else should. Sometimes people need help and they should get it, but they should not get a free ride because of it.

Quote:Free health care and welfare only add to a country, because it allows everybody to have a more equal lifestyle. Poor people need a roof over their head just as much as a rich person. And a poor person would need kimo therapy (should they ever get cancer) just as much as a rich person. A person's health shouldn't be determined by how much money they have in the bank.

One need only look at America to see that welfare is a massive failure and has detracted heavily from this country. It has created a group of people who believe they are entitled to handouts and that the world owes them a living. It's created a group of people who are leeches on society and will never strive to be anything but leeches. It has done a great job creating poverty and ruining the futures of many black people. Free health care would only compound the problem. Welfare states are failures. And again, I don't want everyone to have an equal lifestyle unless everyone is willing to work their asses off to get it. If people don't work, they deserve nothing. I do not believe anyone is entitled to comfort. I believe that if you do not want to contribute to society you have no right to benefit from it. When you tell people that they can have what I have without working from it, you are telling that person that there is no reason whatsoever to try and be an industrious human being because the government will give them what they want for nothing. Then you'll have half the people paying all their money supporting the other half who don't want to work, and then society collapses on itself.

America should do all it can to avoid becoming a welfare state, because doing so would effectively destroy our economy and ultimately society. All you need to do is look at the socialist fortresses of Europe to see how welfare has ruined their economies and, more slowly, their societies.

Quote:Health care.

First, America is not about to become a welfare state like Europe and Canada. It just won't happen, unfortunately. So what could happen? What should happen? What should happen is, somehow, get healthcare for everyone. It is tragic that 40 million Americans have no healthcare. Fourty MILLION! That's a lot! Sure, for the top 5 or 10% we have the best healthcare in the world. But for the people in the lower levels, we have the worst healthcare in the industrialized world.

40 million people don't have healthcare in America. 240 million people in America do have healthcare. The forty million that don't already essentially get it for free anyway.

You know, you're a college kid who probably lives off of grants, loans, or daddy's money, so where do you get off telling anyone what people should do with money they work to earn? Who gives you that right? Do you even work? At all?

Quote:And you want to make it WORSE by actually REVOKING healthcare from some of the few poor people who actually have any? Are you sane? As said already, its a false assumption that people like you have that poor people are stupid and lazy and waste money and the state's time. That is just false. Most of those people try but can't get anywhere... and have nowhere to turn when someone gets sick. As Fittisize said, what a great society THAT leads to.

People fail. Too bad, so sad. You can pick up the chips and try again, or you can give up. If they give up, they deserve what they get. I personally am sick and tired of getting so much money deducted from my paltry paychecks already to provide services to poor people that I myself do not get for free. I know you're a blind liberal because you most likely never worked a day in your life, but I find that extremely unfair to myself and everyone else who works for a living, who goes to school while working, sometimes two jobs, to make ends meet.

The simple fact is that most truly poor people are poor because they are either lack the intelligence or work ethic to achieve anything better, and frankly I see no reason to give them anything. Many of them don't even try to better themselves. I don't feel so bad about giving help to people who put serious effort into working or school, but the simple fact is that many poor people do not try hard, or at all, because they know that they'll still get their government check on the 15th of the month no matter how little effort they put in. You liberals have created a cancer in our society with your welfare state ideas. Someday you'll collectively admit what a failure it was, but it'll be too late then, because your goal of making everyone equally poor will be too greatly realized to reverse.

Quote:Next, what can we do? Well, somehow get healthcare to everyone. Every Democratic candidate for president supports this idea... sure, the costs for their plans are all over the map, but all have a plan.

And how much will it cost? Well, even the most expensive one (Gephardt's) doesn't require any new taxes. All it requires is to get rid of the Bush tax cuts. Thats it.

And for the less expensive plans other candidates have, all those require is getting rid of the part of the tax cuts that hasn't come into effect. Or just the part for the top 5%. Just that part alone would fund a large percentage of the program... and its not like that tax cut was needed anyway.

Wow, what a great idea. Hey Mr. Hardworking taxpayer, you have to give up more money out of your paycheck so that the boozers and druggies can get free healthcare. Doesn't that sound like a fabulous idea?

The point isn't how much it will cost, the point is that no one deserves healthcare for free. At a reduced cost? Maybe. But free? No. Too many free rides as it is.

Quote:Because its just not acceptible to allow the current situation, where millions have no health care and millions more have such a small amount of it that they can't cover much of anything when they get sick. We've got to do something! And ignore people with delusions that poor people are all evil money wasters like Weltall here.

Yeah, we've got to do something! We can start with removing welfare benefits for non-workers, and removing ALL benefits for illegal aliens. We can continue with removing all free non-emergency healthcare, which is the main reason insurance premiums are as high as they are already. We can ease some of the horridly high malpractice insurance costs for doctors. We can also encourage more competition in the insurance field. And best of all, we can encourage everyone to get a job and contribute to society, and leave behind everyone who refuses. Healthcare should not be a charity.

If free healthcare is given AT ALL, it should only be on a strictly temporary basis and have strong limitations as to what services can be free, so as to coerce the person to get themselves in their societal niche, stop leeching and start contributing, to start repaying the debt that the poor people owe the taxpayers.

It's called tough love, sweetheart. No work, no food, no healthcare. Only that way can people have a reason to pursue wealth.

You make it sound like you live the hardest life in the world, Weltall. Gee, those long hours at Wal-Mart! Sitting on your ass all day! Tough love, indeed! God, you are one of the most selfish people I've seen. You just care soooo much about how high YOUR quality of life is. YOUR paycheck. I bet you any amount of money that if say you were fired from your job and suddenly there were no available jobs, you couldn't afford rent for your house, got ejected from your house, and had to live on the streets, man would you be wishing for welfare. And how about you are livnig on the streets, and a group of thugs came, curb stomped your ass, and broke your arms and a leg? Well, you'd crawl to a hospital and they'd refuse to help you out 'cause you have no money.

Shit like this happens to people. And I bet every one of them were thinking, "well, it's all my fault I have no money. And these broken legs? I can live with them. It doesn't matter that I will probably die because I'll be rotting on the streets the rest of my short life. In order to keep our country fully capitalist, we have to refrain from giving money to the needy, so we have the ultimate society!!"

No.

Do you think that ANY deserving person (albeit one with horrible luck)who deserves a steady paycheck should have to beg for money and live in a box and hope to god he doesn't catch a cold? Godamn, this stuff HAPPENS. As much in Canada as the US. The difference being though is that with Welfare services in Canada, the government can put them back on their feet and have them working at a steady job soon enough. Welfare services are around to help people BACK on their feet, not as a paycheck for their entire lives. Welfare does not last a lifetime.

Imagine your best friend needs to have a heart transplant. He can afford it, but it would cost around 200 grande. He would be set back for many, many years should he pay for it. So instead of paying all that money, how about far, far, far, far, far less than that a year in taxes to insure he gets this ever-important transplant. It is a MUCH better system than to have a dirt-poor life until you can repay the 200 grande.

But I imagine you are thinking to yourself, "eh, that's life. Tough love. Suck it up."

'Tough love' is a saying that will work with a hockey coach, or a football coach making the players do push ups for screwing up. Hockey and football are games. A person's health and well being is life. Tough love just doesn't make sense in the game of life.

Nobody deserves to be living in a sewer their whole life. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.

Quote:Absolutely not. But I think if a homeless person can't get a job and get some kind of medical insurance, they're a waste anyway. The unemployment rate in VA is under 4%, meaning you really have to either be such an asshole that you can't hold a job, or you have to basically WANT to be jobless.

You have a point about the little boy scenario, but there is usually a way they'll work with you on payments. It's really uncommon for a patient that needs life-saving treatment to be turned away, as it's against medical ethics to allow a patient to die.

Alot of homeless people suffer from mental I'llness and really should be put in homes to recieve proper care.

Not all Homeless people dont work , Ive seen alot of Hoboes working part time at Wal'mart . They live in a beat up car but cant afford a simple apartment, All their money goes to gas and food and cant really get insurance coverage or afford a proper health care. Should they die too because of their poor education?

the only people I can agree that do need a kick in the ass are Runaways ages 16- 19 and up, that live on the street ,steal and commit crimes to survive.To me they should either be rehabilitated into society and returned to their families or sent to the military to do service to their country and recieve proper discipline and education.

I put the homeless and poor into categories.

1.mentaly I'll = Need to be place in proper care for thier needs.
2. uneducated = Need Education and rehebilitation
3.The Rare truly unfortunate. = same as number 2
4. lazy leaches.= Kicked in the ass and sent to Jail.
5. Runaways. = Either same as number 2 or they go to do military service and get to see world and see how truly fortunate they are.

AS for healthcare service abuse ,Those patients need to be sent to a local clinic.

If you have Heart burn it could very well seem like a heart attack , so that really is just a miss call that cant really be avoided.

As for colds and Flus only small children and those with weak imune systems should be admited such as the Elderly.

To me its not the patients to blaim its poor management it sounds to me its your States trying to place blaim on other people for there poor managing.

Quote:Weltall:

You only get what you put into it

But people AREN'T equal. Some people are more intelligent than others, some are smarter than others, and some are more industrious than others. Those people deserve to live better than others because of their talents, and they deserve to be rich as well.

This assumes that the capitalist system we have is completely fair. While the capitalist system in the United States is probably the best in the world, it is not without its flaws. If the success of a person depended solely on intelligence, smartness, industriousness, etc., the executive boardrooms of the top 500 companies would have similar demographics to the entire United States: 83.4% White, 12.4%black, 3.3% Asian, and .8% Native American. In addition, 50% of these executives would be women. Yet both of us know that this is not the reality. I know that I have an unfair advantage over a person that grew up in Harlem, New York, but is just as smart as I am, just as motivated as I am, and just as weak as I am. I know that this person couldn't go to the college I'm going to.

And what about those drugs, Welltaii?

Quote:Originally posted by Fittisize
You make it sound like you live the hardest life in the world, Weltall. Gee, those long hours at Wal-Mart! Sitting on your ass all day! Tough love, indeed! God, you are one of the most selfish people I've seen. You just care soooo much about how high YOUR quality of life is. YOUR paycheck. I bet you any amount of money that if say you were fired from your job and suddenly there were no available jobs, you couldn't afford rent for your house, got ejected from your house, and had to live on the streets, man would you be wishing for welfare. And how about you are livnig on the streets, and a group of thugs came, curb stomped your ass, and broke your arms and a leg? Well, you'd crawl to a hospital and they'd refuse to help you out 'cause you have no money.

Shit like this happens to people. And I bet every one of them were thinking, "well, it's all my fault I have no money. And these broken legs? I can live with them. It doesn't matter that I will probably die because I'll be rotting on the streets the rest of my short life. In order to keep our country fully capitalist, we have to refrain from giving money to the needy, so we have the ultimate society!!"

No.

Do you think that ANY deserving person (albeit one with horrible luck)who deserves a steady paycheck should have to beg for money and live in a box and hope to god he doesn't catch a cold? Godamn, this stuff HAPPENS. As much in Canada as the US. The difference being though is that with Welfare services in Canada, the government can put them back on their feet and have them working at a steady job soon enough. Welfare services are around to help people BACK on their feet, not as a paycheck for their entire lives. Welfare does not last a lifetime.

Imagine your best friend needs to have a heart transplant. He can afford it, but it would cost around 200 grande. He would be set back for many, many years should he pay for it. So instead of paying all that money, how about far, far, far, far, far less than that a year in taxes to insure he gets this ever-important transplant. It is a MUCH better system than to have a dirt-poor life until you can repay the 200 grande.

But I imagine you are thinking to yourself, "eh, that's life. Tough love. Suck it up."

'Tough love' is a saying that will work with a hockey coach, or a football coach making the players do push ups for screwing up. Hockey and football are games. A person's health and well being is life. Tough love just doesn't make sense in the game of life.

Nobody deserves to be living in a sewer their whole life. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.

First off, you're listing horrible worst-case scenarios here, outside the realm of reality.

Secondly, the entire problem with Welfare in America is that welfare recipients believe they are entitled to assistance for life, because for so long they were getting it for nothing. That has created a group of society that believes they have no obligation to work for anything. They believe that the world, or more accurately the taxpayers owe them a living. Now they will have absolutely no work ethic, nor will they have any marketable skills. Welfare has ruined any chance of them ever making anything of themselves.

Don't get me wrong, welfare does save people, but it should be strictly limited in application. Work for Welfare was actually a good start to the idea but we need to eliminate welfare as a means of living. It needs to become what it was originally intended to be: A very temporary form of assistance. In that form I am perfectly okay with it, and even with reduced cost or free healthcare: It's great if it is temporarily offered to people. It is NOT desirable to offer such things as long-term solutions because in the long term such programs waste money and make things very bad for everyone. Yet liberals like ABF want America to be a Welfare state, with the eventual goal of making everyone equally poor and totally dependant on the government to live.

I do NOT believe people should be left to die if they get sick, but I also believe that whatever medical services a person uses should be reimbursed by that person. Offering absolute free medical services to poor people will make some people feel that it's worth moving down in the tax bracket so that they can benefit. It happened with welfare and it caused a disaster.

Quote:Alot of homeless people suffer from mental I'llness and really should be put in homes to recieve proper care.

Not all Homeless people dont work , Ive seen alot of Hoboes working part time at Wal'mart . They live in a beat up car but cant afford a simple apartment, All their money goes to gas and food and cant really get insurance coverage or afford a proper health care. Should they die too because of their poor education?

the only people I can agree that do need a kick in the ass are Runaways ages 16- 19 and up, that live on the street ,steal and commit crimes to survive.To me they should either be rehabilitated into society and returned to their families or sent to the military to do service to their country and recieve proper discipline and education.

I put the homeless and poor into categories.

1.mentaly I'll = Need to be place in proper care for thier needs.
2. uneducated = Need Education and rehebilitation
3.The Rare truly unfortunate. = same as number 2
4. lazy leaches.= Kicked in the ass and sent to Jail.
5. Runaways. = Either same as number 2 or they go to do military service and get to see world and see how truly fortunate they are.

AS for healthcare service abuse ,Those patients need to be sent to a local clinic.

If you have Heart burn it could very well seem like a heart attack , so that really is just a miss call that cant really be avoided.

As for colds and Flus only small children and those with weak imune systems should be admited such as the Elderly.

To me its not the patients to blaim its poor management it sounds to me its your States trying to place blaim on other people for there poor managing.

You offer an excellent point: The homeless could, rather SHOULD be required to take military service (Hell, I think it'd be a great idea if military service was totally compulsory for EVERYONE). That way, the homeless are not only making contributions to society, but they are given ample opportunities to learn a trade or go to college. Fuck, the army pays COMPLETE TUITION for almost anyone! There's no reason whatsoever why someone who cannot afford education cannot take military service. None whatsoever.

Granted, not everyone can be expected to work, mainly mental cases. I believe they deserve care until they die because they are completely incapable of doing things for themselves. They truly have no options in the world. I would say the same for people who suffer physical disabilites that prevent them from doing most jobs.

Everybody else, however, has some level of opportunity to change their place in life and it is up to them to discover it.

Quote: This assumes that the capitalist system we have is completely fair. While the capitalist system in the United States is probably the best in the world, it is not without its flaws. If the success of a person depended solely on intelligence, smartness, industriousness, etc., the executive boardrooms of the top 500 companies would have similar demographics to the entire United States: 83.4% White, 12.4%black, 3.3% Asian, and .8% Native American. In addition, 50% of these executives would be women. Yet both of us know that this is not the reality. I know that I have an unfair advantage over a person that grew up in Harlem, New York, but is just as smart as I am, just as motivated as I am, and just as weak as I am. I know that this person couldn't go to the college I'm going to.

I will concede that it is more difficult for some to achieve than others, but there is always a way, and if you are resourceful enough you can overcome many shortcomings. It depends not on where you were born or raised or what color you are but it your ingenuity and your will to succeed. Some people might have to try harder to get to the top but that's no excuse for not trying. [/quote]

And what about those drugs, Welltaii?

Illegal drugs? Prescription drugs? Specify for me so I can answer.

If you mean illegal drugs as I think you do, I am against legalizing them because many drugs have dangerous effects that pose a danger not only to the user but people around them. Alcohol is one like that, granted, but used in moderation that is usually not a factor, whereas many illegal drugs can obliterate a person's rational thinking in the tiniest of doses.

But then again I have no problem with someone who wants to toke a little herb in the privacy of their own home either, so long as they're responsible about it.

Quote:Weltall: I will concede that it is more difficult for some to achieve than others, but there is always a way, and if you are resourceful enough you can overcome many shortcomings. It depends not on where you were born or raised or what color you are but it your ingenuity and your will to succeed.

I respect your passion for the capitalist system, but there are some inconsistencies in your post. In one hand, it is more difficult for some to achieve than others because of shortcomings. You have to admit that race, wealth of parents, and place of birth are significant shortcomings. On the other hand, you say that success doesn't depend upon the very shortcomings that you have just recognized. The only way that this can be true is if success is defined in a relative manner.

I'm assuming from your previous posts that intelligence is a fair shortcoming. I hope that we can all agree that race is an unfair shortcoming. Yet both of these traits are strictly tied to genes, things that we cannot control. This is an inconsistency. Both must be either fair or unfair. For the sake of humanity, we must conclude that both are unfair. In the context of a capitalist system, this means that some people are given unfair advantages/disadvantages simply because of the manner of their birth: their genes, their parents, their wealth, their neighborhood. Where we go from there is up to us.

Welfare is an attempt to help the people with the most unfair disadvantages so that they can reenter the capitalist system. Because we are human, we are bound to make an imperfect system. Instead of helping people reenter the capitalist system, we provide no incentive to leave Welfare. Instead of providing people with things, we might want to try providing people with training. The military is one way to do this. Another is through something like Israel's Histadrut, a state-run, nation-wide organization that ran the economy by finding jobs and helping people start up businesses. If we molded this idea so that it only applied to those on Welfare, this might be a good alternative to military service.

On the illegal drugs issue, you nearly proved my point by bringing up acohol. What dangerous effects to other people do illegal drugs have that alcohol (which is legal) doesn't?

In canada most of the poor are white and Native.

Our black comunities are usally more educated and have better oportunities then they do in the U.S .We ended segregation alot earlier then the states so the black citizens and other minorities had more time to get out of the rot and back into the sunshine with everyone else.

Their used to be a slum in halifax in the 60's which was prone to crime and violence. As most of its black citizens lived in a disadvantaged poor state.

What the goverment did was relocate them and give them all jobs either in the goverment or the military and some also were given a second chance at education. The slums were bull dozed and rebuilt into a new cleaner neighborhood.

Right now the minorities dont have a higher poverty rate then the european majority.

The natives poverty is only a result of poor goverment support or really the a failure of the Aborginals themselves to fend for themselves. As seen the gas smoking inuit kids in labrador, But even though the inuit comunity sufferd from poor leadership a few caring council leaders spoke out and got enough media attention to clean up their villages from neglected kids wasting their lives sniffing toxic fumes.

So really if you want help you got to help yourself first.