25th January 2004, 11:08 AM
Quote:Yeah! It's all one big giant, conspiracy, man, that the government designed to make sure that everybody stays poor. Duuude.
And he actually believes it too. It's pretty scary.
Quote:Quote:Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.
Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.
It depends were in canada your talking about , If canada could just have more docters and nurses the national health care system would work, But the advantage of our health care is lower costs to the patients were only 60% of americans have health care insurance and not everyones insurance is acceptable in every clinic. What I reccomend for the U.S is a national medicare that is optional were if you are well off and can afford good hospitals you dont need to pay taxes for medicare, Were if you dont have good insurance you can get on medicare coverage for the price of additional taxes.
The US overall has worse health care than pretty much the whole first world. We're way down on the list. Why? Because 40 million people have no coverage at all (not 40%, ASM...) and most of the rest don't have anything close to comprehensive coverage. National health care wouldn't be the best system ever but I'd take it over HMOs, no question... HMOs are awful if you ever are unlucky enough to actually need care. Slower? Maybe. But everyone would HAVE it, and would have a decent plan that might actually cover the things they need... in America today that just is not the case and that is why the Democrats are focusing so much on this issue.
Quote: Does this mean "Yes, I hate the rich" or "No, I don't hate the rich"?
Saying that the rich should be paying a lot higher percentage than everyone else and should not be getting tax cuts isn't hating them, it's saying that since they have the money they can afford to give a lot more and should give a lot more... corporations too. Corporate tax breaks shouldn't happen much.
Quote: I asked for proof about social programs, not wide-based liberal propaganda machines.
They have all kinds of links to articles that show how idiotic and evil this administration is on a wide variety of topics, especially the first one...
Quote: That is increasingly not the case.
But we were talking about pre-Civil Rights...
Quote: Translation: I'm full of crap but too chicken to admit it.
No, the translation is that I've given links before and it's never mattered and you are obviously not the type who will ever listen so what in the world would the point be? I think I've supported my case more than enough with evidence over the time we've been arguing these things...
Quote:The rich pay, percentage-wise, far, far more taxes than I do. So no, I don't feel the least bit of resentment against them. It's my goal to be rich one day. Why would I hate them?
Note: Having goals and working to achieve them is basically the centerpiece of my entire ideological belief. I don't feel resentment over not being rich because I haven't earned it. And if I do become rich, I won't feel the slightest guilt for anyone who isn't, because I did work for it.
Very few people are rich. Most will not be joining them. And when you are rich you have money so can afford to give more in taxes. Making the poor and lower-middle pay an increasing share of the tax burden while the rich get massive cuts should be criminal...
Quote:And if taxes are lessened, middle-class families can better afford far superior private schools for their children and better health insurance coverage. Zing!
Nope. Not with conservative tax cuts that barely cut anything for people below the top 5%.
Quote:No matter how you look at it, percentage-wise there are not many poor people in America. If you count poor as making under a certain amount of money, there are few. If you count poor as destitute, that number is much smaller.
Few? I disagree. Tens of millions of people are far from "few"... especially when you consider both rural and urban poverty...
Quote:Most are able to begin. Most people have the opportunity. But we can't tell because social programs stymie any hope of that happening.
No, most people are not able to begin. Not at all.
Quote:Again, I don't understand your logic. You have this crazed idea that it's better for people to not work for their money. Welfare usually doesn't pay anymore than a minimum wage job does.
Plus, I know you ignore most of what I say, but in the past I've said several times that I don't mind people recieving welfare IN ADDITION to income from a job, which would save money on welfare rolls AND give people more income! What I do NOT like is the idea of people getting it for absolutely nothing in return. And few of those people are physically incapable of working. What I do not like is people who intentionally create large families just to get free welfare money. I don't think it's the government's job to save you from being stupid.
The government should not abandon people to poor, unhappy lives... yes some people cannot be helped or do things to themselves that are stupid but for most poor I wouldn't say that that's the case... if there were decent jobs they could get, they should, but those are rare, especially in an economy like this...
Without welfare (and other programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, etc...) I am absolutely certain that the number of homeless in this country would be a lot higher.