Liberal or Conservative?

[Shepherd]

Sorry about that. After I sent the post and read it on-site, I realized how egocentric it sounded. By "true American", I just mean someone who strives to live by the ideals of the founding fathers as interpreted by modern society. I vote, I give back to the community, and I want to be left alone. This country is built upon the efforts of countless millions of people who came from somewhere else. After all, the first white settlers were born in Europe, not North America. So being a "true American" is not supposed to be exclusionary.

On the flip side, folks from other countries who just visit and then tell us how we need to change in order to be better annoy me almost as much as rude American tourists seem to annoy everyone else.

[bloodlusta]

Oh no we love American touriests over here. they are more than welcome to come and spend there money. What anoys us is when you turn on the radio and hear an American voice presneting the news (and struggling with NZ words and place names the funnyest being them trying to say Wakatane, they say it whack-a-tan when it is said fuck-a-tarn-aye). Or when their Liberals come over here and tell us how racist we are to Maori (Im half Moaori and it pisses me off!) or that we should make our kids wears shoes and not let them climb trees. Or we need to ban air rifles ect ect

It seems we both want the same people to leave us alone.

[Beausonmed]

I think we are all just a product of our environment, all the shit that goes down is just relative interaction.
Pain is bad and pleasure is good, but the sense of right will always be subjective.

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Same with gays. I don't have a problem with them as long as they keep it to themselfs.

Might I ask what it means for a gay to keep it to himself?

I'd call myself a liberal but I don't really like labeling myself because I agree with many conservative opinions. In fact I think Sheperd has summed up my views and opinions fairly well, aside from this one,

They [gays] have rights, but I'm not sure that I agree how many rights they should get.

They should get the same rights as we do, I can't see how anyone could objectively argue that they deserve any less.

Perhaps their right to adopt is debatable (a child needs a woman's touch just as much as a man's) but for stuff like marriage and 'acting gay' that would fall under freedom of self, you shouldn't hide who you are because it might make someone cringe. If that were so all conservatives and liberals would have to hide their political and religious views. God forbid someone might be offended by them.

[Shepherd]

Again, I guess should have been clearer especially when talking about rights or restricting rights. I do know several decent guys (and gals) who are homosexuals. I do not know any gay couples who have been together long term.

I have a problem with gays adopting and raising children. Not because I think that all gays are molesters, perverts, or anything like that. Only because when I was a teenager, I was molested while passed out drunk. It's a bug in my psyche that I haven't been able to eradicate. I worked through most of the anger and disgust, but there is this one thing-are you gay because you want to be, or because you have to be? I've seen arguments on both sides, but I am not educated enough to decide which is right. Maybe both, you know? Some people are born gay, some people choose to be gay. So if you can be 'trained' to be gay, should you have the right to raise a child to be gay? But if a person is born gay, how can we have the right to deny them the joy of raising a child? I tell you, it's enough to drive you nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Enough, I'm off to work---------

[bloodlusta]

What I meant was I don't like those gay pride marches ect. Or being called a homophobe because I don't want a gay man hugging me (I don't like any man hugging me). I don't like seeing gays hook up in public. I don't an issue with them hugging, holding hands ect. But the kissing makes me feel sick, and its just not approprate for a public place.

[3nKrYp7]

Ha, can you imagine the uproar if someone tried to organise a 'Straight Pride' parade? Thousands of people showing how straight they are, it's pretty fucking absurd. Same with 'Gay pride', who gives a shit. There's no need to throw a parade for every small thing in your life.

Although I disagree with your comment public displays of affection, if they want to make-out in public they should be allowed. I'd turn my head and look the other way but I still think it's they're right, same as a straight couple.

Anyway I think I've dragged this topic down enough, just wasn't sure about the original comments. Thanks for clarifying.

[headcase]

Everyone seems to deem "appropriate" with what they themselves find acceptable to see. I'm not going to sit and watch a straight couple kiss, but unless we're putting a blanket ban over all public displays of affection then there's no valid argument for it being different for homosexual couples. Secondly, everyone has the right to public demonstrations. See the police protecting the BNP rally in Britain last week? It's called modern democracy; free society. If you don't give a shit fine, neither do I, but you look like a fool when you bitch about it.

[bloodlusta]

I was by no means suggesting there be law agaist gays marching or PDAs. 3nKrYp7 asked what I meant by kept to themselfs. I was just saying what I don't like them doing.

[Draven]

Well I'm very much a conservative...

* I believe everyone has a right to freedom of speech, if offends someone too bad. Liberals always seem complain they want free speech but they criminalize and demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. Often wanting them censored for hate speech...
* I believe in the second amendment and would take it a step further by saying that all american citizens; without limitation to being a felon or what have you, has the right to own a firearm and protect themselves and that includes fully automatic weapons as well. I'm in the I don't care department on explosives and such but hey thats me, I can see little issue with the responsible use of explosives and have used Dynamite to blow stumps out the ground as kid with my grandfather so...
* Protests are likewise a do you thing but don't harass or harm me and I'm happy for you. To me it falls under that free speech issue...
* Gay marrage is a joke to me, not because I give a shit but because marrage is a religious ceremony and so protected under everyone's right to Freedom of Religion. If your religion doesn't permit it find one that will. The state is subject to the restriction of freedom of religion...
* I'm against Gays adopting children because I have issue under the nature versus nurture issue. Its about 50/50 on that front, and a kid will try to immulate their parents at a young age so conditioning a child to act against their biological nature will only confuse the children and lead to greater emotional/psychological stress. I have no issue with a Gay parent so long at it is their child they are raising. Basicly we all have a choice in life and have chance to make an informed choice even we are biologically predisposed to be our parents children.
* I'm all for civil rights but I don't believe in the race baiting and racial guilt that liberals push. Fact is slavery existed after the Civil War and the Emasipation Proclimation only freed slaves in the South. The North had slaves as well which were not freed by the act, dispite the BS history they teach in school and 2/3 of the origional slaves came from Ireland and Scottland brought over by British more so the Black/White issue is just a scam to divide people, something Liberals are good at. I don't give a rats ass whose ancestor was a slave if you look back far enough everyone had an ancestor who was a slave but we have liberals and especially Marxist Black Liberals who ride the race card like its a magic carpet. Race only plays a role of you let it & I'm sick and tired of hearing people blame incompence on their skin tone...
* Universal Healthcare is another example of political bull shit.

Its all pretty freaking simple, dumb shit like race baiting, offering free services as rights and so is just plain stupid. The "War on Drugs" only hinders everyone's availability to medical care and medicine of one's choosing and now universal medical care hinders that even more...

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by Draven

* Gay marrage is a joke to me, not because I give a shit but because marrage is a religious ceremony and so protected under everyone's right to Freedom of Religion. If your religion doesn't permit it find one that will. The state is subject to the restriction of freedom of religion...

'Gay marriage' generally refers to the rights of couples to be considered legally married and has nothing, for the most part, to do with religion. I doubt most gay couples are members of organised religion, instead they want the government and courts to recognise them as engaged in a legal relationship and receive the same acknowledgement and rights straight couples get.

offering free services as rights and so is just plain stupid.

Most countries, including America, provide basic services freely to the people. Stuff like police and fire departments and schools are the most obvious examples, a country couldn't operate efficiently without them.

...only hinders everyone's availability to medical care and medicine of one's choosing and now universal medical care hinders that even more...

With a Universal healthcare system you would still have the same choices you have now with regards to medical plans but an additional Government funded one if, for any reason, your health insurance fails to cover an illness. I live in a country with Universal healthcare and have access to private facilities, which I've used.

I'm not looking to get into a Public/Private healthcare system Vs. Private one debate, I just thought I'd point that out.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

'Gay marriage' generally refers to the rights of couples to be considered legally married and has nothing, for the most part, to do with religion. I doubt most gay couples are members of organised religion, instead they want the government and courts to recognise them as engaged in a legal relationship and receive the same acknowledgement and rights straight couples get.

First, off straight couples don't get the same rights as married couples unless they are married. I have no issue with a Gay couple given the same rights as straight couples, however marrage is a religious (Judeo-Christian) ethic that is not universal to other religions. As such I feel that marrage should only be considered marrage when indorsed by the religious institution and I know several which permit gay marrage.

I don't think the state should issue marrage licences, as marrage is a religious concept, therefore if one's religion permits it the state can have no say in the free exercise of religion. By the way, several humanist philosophies are considered religious-philosophies including Athieism.

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

Most countries, including America, provide basic services freely to the people. Stuff like police and fire departments and schools are the most obvious examples, a country couldn't operate efficiently without them.With a Universal healthcare system you would still have the same choices you have now with regards to medical plans but an additional Government funded one if, for any reason, your health insurance fails to cover an illness. I live in a country with Universal healthcare and have access to private facilities, which I've used.

I'm not looking to get into a Public/Private healthcare system Vs. Private one debate, I just thought I'd point that out.

I have no issue with police, fire departments and so on, except when they interupt my free exercise of my rights. Public schools are used more for indocturination then education, so I find them useless and very much agree with my rights as a parent to home school my kids. Most fire departments in my area are volunteer fire departments meaning the people in the town volunteer to act as the fire department. Cops are joke...

Free heal care is a vastly more complicated issue then your trying to play out. First off, I prefer preventative medicines. Secondly, I prefer nature herbs to extracted, filtered and concentrated chemical drugs. Third, I believe everyone should have a right to choose in how they are treated. Ask some of the vets on this board how the VAMCs treat us and thats what government healcare gets you. You have the options they give you alone and thats often a) treatment on their terms and b) suffer alone at home. And here is the punch line, if I try to use herbs to treat myself and the .gov crowd feels its interfering with their healthcare, they send in the police to arrest me as a casualty of the "Drug War."

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by Draven

First, off straight couples don't get the same rights as married couples unless they are married.

By 'couples' I meant 'married couples', that was implied given the topic at hand.

I have no issue with a Gay couple given the same rights as straight couples,

Good, that is entirely what gay rights protesters are looking for.

however marrage is a religious (Judeo-Christian) ethic that is not universal to other religions. As such I feel that marrage should only be considered marrage when indorsed by the religious institution and I know several which permit gay marrage.

Well you can call it whatever you like but there are two seperate concepts; legal marriage and religious marriage. You don't want gays to be included in religious marriage? Fine, neither do they. They do however want to be recognised with regards to legal marriage and recieve the same benefits that straight [legally] married couples get.

I don't think the state should issue marrage licences, as marrage is a religious concept,

The state doesn't issue out religious documents, they issue out legal documents. You can have a Christian marriage without the state but must churches require your marriage to be recognised by the state. A marriage licence is not a religious concept, it's a legal one. When you get married in a church it is assumed god is aware of the marriage and doesn't need paperwork, although the church may have you sign a document for their own records (or they may just photocopy the legal certificate)

I have no issue with police, fire departments and so on, except when they interupt my free exercise of my rights. Public schools are used more for indocturination then education, so I find them useless and very much agree with my rights as a parent to home school my kids. Most fire departments in my area are volunteer fire departments meaning the people in the town volunteer to act as the fire department. Cops are joke...

That's fine, but I was just addressing the statement you made stating all free services provided as rights were a joke when they are clearly required (can you imagine law enforcement being a private sector with competing departments?)

Free heal care is a vastly more complicated issue then your trying to play out.

I'm was just correcting you when you said you'd have lose choices with regards to medical care, you wouldn't. Quite the opposite in fact.

First off, I prefer preventative medicines. Secondly, I prefer nature herbs to extracted, filtered and concentrated chemical drugs.

Neither of which a universal health care plan would affect.

Third, I believe everyone should have a right to choose in how they are treated. Ask some of the vets on this board how the VAMCs treat us and thats what government healcare gets you. You have the options they give you alone and thats often a) treatment on their terms and b) suffer alone at home. And here is the punch line, if I try to use herbs to treat myself and the .gov crowd feels its interfering with their healthcare, they send in the police to arrest me as a casualty of the "Drug War."

Well the government already dictate what drugs are considered medicinal and what are illegal. A universal plan wouldn't affect that. You can't currently walk into a hospital and tell the doctor how to treat you, not even doctors have that benefit.

If you want to debate this open a new thread so as not to clutter this one.

[Draven]

No but you can get a second opinion from another doctor, something you cannot relying on government sponcored healthcare (as proven with the VAMC) because you are going with a government regulated guidelines for treatment and if the regs don't agree the patient doesn't get the proper treatment. I have government ran health care and thats not the best or even acceptable in most conditions...

As for legal marrage that requires a state sponsored contract and until the last 100 years did not exist. Marrage is nothing more then a oath you swear to another person, the only people concern with the legal marrage are those who are looking at divorce. Why get married of you are getting divorced?

As for the debate, lets have it as it applies to the liberal/conservative point of view...

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by Draven

No but you can get a second opinion from another doctor, something you cannot relying on government sponcored healthcare (as proven with the VAMC) because you are going with a government regulated guidelines for treatment and if the regs don't agree the patient doesn't get the proper treatment. I have government ran health care and thats not the best or even acceptable in most conditions...

Is VAMC mandatatory healthcare for veterans or may they use private facilities? You seem to be suggesting that if a universal plan was introduced you would lose your current choices and must use the government regulated system, you wouldn't.

If you make use of the government healthcare of course you would have to follow their guidelines (much like if you make use of private healthcare you have to follow their guidelines) but if you disagreed with their guidelines you could use a private facility. It would be the same system as is currently implemented but their would be an additional service for those who can't afford insurance or for those whose insurance fails to cover their illness.

For those that can't afford insurance under the current system a public option would be better than nothing.

If the universal system is introduce the Government wouldn't be suddenly hijacking the current system, they would be extending it. They already regulate what medical procedures can be done and what drugs can be prescribed, that's not an issue.

the only people concern with the legal marrage are those who are looking at divorce.

And those who which to recieve the following benefits,

• joint parenting;
• joint adoption;
• joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
• status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
• joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
• dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
• immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
• inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
• joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
• inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
• benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
• spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
• veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
• joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
• wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
• bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
• decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
• crime victims' recovery benefits;
• loss of consortium tort benefits;
• domestic violence protection orders;
• judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Those are what gay-rights protesters are looking for.

[MrBlonde]

In my opinion you simply cannot trust was is portrayed as "conservative" or "liberal" by the media. It is all propoganda to sway their collective goals. Check out Edward Bernays book "Propaganda". It applies to more than one center of influence (i.e. the media). It was a blueprint that was laid out decades ago.

[Draven]

3nKrYp7,

First off, yes I can use medical care outside the VAMC, however under the idea of a UNIVERSAL healthcare system the same standards of treatment for those who can pay for it and those who can't must be the same. Which means further government regulation of the healthcare system. So it doesn't matter if I can use a private option now, under government sponsored healthcare I won't have that option because it will be univseral heathcare guidelines...

Secondly, many of the things you mentioned already exist for gay couples. Thats specifically why I say that the government should stay out of the marrage issue. The 1A clearly states "Congress shall make no laws governing religion or the free exercise there of." If marrage is recognised as a religious instutution, whether organized or unorganized, then the government has no say over who can/cannot marry and accept any marrage at face value.

By my conservative-minded way of thinking; the USA is a republic established by laws those laws are absolute. I can no more say Gays cannot marry then; whites, blacks, blues, yellows, the handicapped or what have you.

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by Draven

First off, yes I can use medical care outside the VAMC, however under the idea of a UNIVERSAL healthcare system the same standards of treatment for those who can pay for it and those who can't must be the same. Which means further government regulation of the healthcare system. So it doesn't matter if I can use a private option now, under government sponsored healthcare I won't have that option because it will be univseral heathcare guidelines...

Universal healthcare does not mean the those who pay for private care must be treated the same as those who use public options. Universal healthcare means everyone has access to a healthcare plan (hence the 'universal healthcare' part of it). You say 'further government regulation of the healthcare system' as if the government don't entirely regulate the healthcare system now, they do. 'Univseral healthcare guidelines' are already in place, they have to be otherwise you'd have completely unsafe and outdated operations being performed and dangerous drugs being prescribed.

Also, the will not be interfering in the private sector and forcing them to conform to new regulations. That would be very counter-productive given one of the aims of a universal health care plan is to promote competition between public and private sectors.

What you seem to be opposing is a completely nationalised health care system (where all hospitals and services are public), not a universal health care plan (everyone is covered under a public plan but may make use of private plans and services). I don't think that's what the Obama administration are trying to push forward.

So, to sum up,

• You do not need to use the public plan
• You can keep everything the way it is now, they will not interfere in your current plan
• The Government will not be regulating your treatment any more than they are now (as they already entirely regulate it).

Secondly, many of the things you mentioned already exist for gay couples. Thats specifically why I say that the government should stay out of the marrage issue.

A gay couple can't do any of those things under federal law. That's the whole point. Depending on the state they may receive state recognition and benefits but not federal ones.

The 1A clearly states "Congress shall make no laws governing religion or the free exercise there of." If marrage is recognised as a religious instutution, whether organized or unorganized, then the government has no say over who can/cannot marry and accept any marrage at face value.

For the sake of clarity lets refer to 'legal marriage' as a civil union. A civil union [i.e. legal marriage] has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Lets remove the religion from it, imagine there were no religions in the US. Under current law any straight couple who entered into a civil union would receive about 1,100 benefits from the federal government, if I recall correctly. However, if a gay couple entered into a civil union it would not be recognised by the federal government and they would not receive those benefits. That's it, there is nothing more to it. No religion involved. So, do you feel that gay couples who enter into a civil union should have that civil union recognised by the feds when straight couples do?

Remember: no religious involvement in these civil unions.

[bloodlusta]

You got to love the news we get over here. Every week there is something about the "growing" exstremeist right in America. Shouting at town meeting and protesting. However not ONE article actully says why they are protesting or what they are complaining about. One article says they were complaining about the healthcare program but doesn't say what about it they don't like.

I am for government paid health care system because it gives you another option. However one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the after shocks of public health care which is "poeple shouldn't be doing that, they could get hurt, and I (the tax payer) will have to pay for their medical bill". Which means laws like you have to wear a helmet while on a motorbike ect. You lose the right to get hurt.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

You got to love the news we get over here. Every week there is something about the "growing" exstremeist right in America. Shouting at town meeting and protesting. However not ONE article actully says why they are protesting or what they are complaining about. One article says they were complaining about the healthcare program but doesn't say what about it they don't like.

The news here is no different. The mainstream channels (CNN, MSN, ABC, etc) report that the people protesting the healthcare bill are either racists, an unruly mob, or (in Nancy Pelosi's words) "Nazis".

Despite this utter control of the media, the Obama administration is loosing popularity fast - largely due to the health care debate.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

I am for government paid health care system because it gives you another option.

I'm sure this isn't being reported in NZ so I'll let you in on it. The system being proposed in the US isn't a "government option" it's mandatory. Under the existing bill, everyone who doesn't have private insurance is automatically under the government plan. Additionally, anyone who wishes to add someone to their plan, take someone off their plan, upgrade their plan, downgrade their plan, switch jobs, or alter their existing coverage in any other manner automatically loses thier private coverage and is under the government plan.

Overall, I'm against government sponsored health care - but then again, I'm against the government sponsoring almost any thing else. That said, I know quite a few hardline liberals that where outraged when they learned that they wouldn't 'really' be allowed to keep their private coverage.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

However one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the after shocks of public health care which is "poeple shouldn't be doing that, they could get hurt, and I (the tax payer) will have to pay for their medical bill". Which means laws like you have to wear a helmet while on a motorbike ect. You lose the right to get hurt.

And when you get hurt, the beurocrat running your care can deny you treatment - serves you right for defying the helmet law.

[bloodlusta]

Ok I had no idea that people would have mandatory plans. In NZ the government simply pays for public hospitals. I.e. I go in with a broken bone, they ask for a name, I say I don't wish to supply one, they say ok and fix me up and ask me to come back for a check up or see my GP in the next few days. If the injury looks suspisous (like I had been comiting a crime) they will notify police who will check it out. And GPs are subsidied so it only costs $50(NZ) to vist (children are free). Also all dentail healthcare is free for under 18.

The idea of having a "plan" for each person just sounds weird to me. Also why wouldn't they want people using the private healthcare system? It would simply reduce their costs.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

Universal healthcare does not mean the those who pay for private care must be treated the same as those who use public options. Universal healthcare means everyone has access to a healthcare plan (hence the 'universal healthcare' part of it). You say 'further government regulation of the healthcare system' as if the government don't entirely regulate the healthcare system now, they do. 'Univseral healthcare guidelines' are already in place, they have to be otherwise you'd have completely unsafe and outdated operations being performed and dangerous drugs being prescribed.

Also, the will not be interfering in the private sector and forcing them to conform to new regulations. That would be very counter-productive given one of the aims of a universal health care plan is to promote competition between public and private sectors.

Have you read the healthcare bill? No... The People voting on it do not even read that shit because its freaking huge, but universal healthcare is a huge part of healthcare reform. The total of healthcare reform of which Universal Healthcare is so popular has three major factors against it...
1) Taxes pay for healthcare; so healthy fit people must pay for the sick and unhealthy. More so, the money is taken out of your check before you even see it. I'm not a fan of supporting everyone else in life, I am a fan of supporting myself and keeping what I work for...
2) Hospitals have all the technology & medicine based income; if hospitals and clinics are getting paid my the government there will be contractual obilgations that will be based on fiscal policy. And much like Britian & Canda's universal healthcare systems; patients must suffer waiting months or years for treatment available in the US now or forced to deal with less effective treatments. More so, with such wide spread fiscal drain; areas, individuals and whole groups of people will be denied healthcare.
3) The economy and the individual working citizens of the US cannot support a universal healthcare system under the current economic conditions. The tax burden alone for individuals would effectively make the cost of living on the working class inobtainable.

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

What you seem to be opposing is a completely nationalised health care system (where all hospitals and services are public), not a universal health care plan (everyone is covered under a public plan but may make use of private plans and services). I don't think that's what the Obama administration are trying to push forward.

Really... Lets look at it this way, what you think is going on and what is actually happening have nothing to do with each other. From balancedpolitics.org the pros and cons of universal heathcare are listed as 7 pros to 16 cons...
BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
Pros:
1. The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 45 million. (And thats side of effet of Health Insurance Regulations, voted for during the Clinton years)
2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. (Think Liberal Clinton's Healthcare policyies, though many of them go back to Commie-Carter)
3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. (Thats BS, you'd have to work for the Government at some point to know what I mean...)
4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. (Which may eliminate the "Second Opinion" option)
5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. (Thats a lie, Hospitals have lawyers who worry about it not Doctors & even small private clinics are required to have similar legal professionals on hand for malpractice and such. Also federal income/tax guidelines hospitals can report non-payment as a default debt and the government takes it out of tax debt as a loss)
6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. (WTF!? Do people on welfare stop having babies for a welfare check? Do pill heads stop selling pills just because they have to pay for them? No...)
7. Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage. (No one is dependant on Heath Insurance for healthcare, more health insurance to begin with drives up the cost of Healthcare & government regulations to make businesses get manditory healthcare services drives up the cost of operating those businesses. Do away with healthcare insurance don't create a government form of it.)

Cons:
1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
13. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
14. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.
15. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.
16. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

A gay couple can't do any of those things under federal law. That's the whole point. Depending on the state they may receive state recognition and benefits but not federal ones.For the sake of clarity lets refer to 'legal marriage' as a civil union. A civil union [i.e. legal marriage] has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Lets remove the religion from it, imagine there were no religions in the US. Under current law any straight couple who entered into a civil union would receive about 1,100 benefits from the federal government, if I recall correctly. However, if a gay couple entered into a civil union it would not be recognised by the federal government and they would not receive those benefits. That's it, there is nothing more to it. No religion involved. So, do you feel that gay couples who enter into a civil union should have that civil union recognised by the feds when straight couples do?

Remember: no religious involvement in these civil unions.

Ok then call it civil union and not marrage. If it isn't marrage then your arguement doesn't exist because again the Principle Idea that this Country was founded on is that "All men are created equal." When you call it marrage you draw up images of religious ceremonies, when you call it civil union it sounds more legal and less religious.

I can see certain restrictions on Gays in the military that are the same for women in the Military Service but thats an issue with strategic docturine. I would think the idea of "Conserving the Principles of the Union" would imply that Gay Marrage is a First Amendment "Freedom of Religion" Issue where as Gay Civil Union is basic idea of "Equality Issue." When you call it Gay Marrage it seems like you are high jacking a Religious Ceremony and that will draw opposition; I'm against the term Gay Marrage more so then the act there of...

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Ok I had no idea that people would have mandatory plans. In NZ the government simply pays for public hospitals. I.e. I go in with a broken bone, they ask for a name, I say I don't wish to supply one, they say ok and fix me up and ask me to come back for a check up or see my GP in the next few days. If the injury looks suspisous (like I had been comiting a crime) they will notify police who will check it out. And GPs are subsidied so it only costs $50(NZ) to vist (children are free). Also all dentail healthcare is free for under 18.

American emergency rooms are free to anyone and everyone. The government doesn't fund them - they require the hospitals to pay for the care.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

The idea of having a "plan" for each person just sounds weird to me. Also why wouldn't they want people using the private healthcare system? It would simply reduce their costs.

You're still looking at it as a way to help people - which it isn't. The purpose of the plan isn't to help anyone, the purpose of the plan is to gain government control over everyone.

Incidentally, the plan also gives the government the right to determine how many children you can have, as well as when you can have them - they're paying for it afterall.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by shetlan

American emergency rooms are free to anyone and everyone. The government doesn't fund them - they require the hospitals to pay for the care.

Actually they get a tax credit for doing so, they write if off as an business expense. The new healthcare plan, means we all get to go in for the sniffles, flu, atheletes foot or what have you. Thats just stupid...

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by Draven

<snip>

I'm not debating whether or not universal healthcare should be introduced in the US, I'm debating your understanding of universal healthcare which is flawed. For example,

And much like Britian & Canda's universal healthcare systems; patients must suffer waiting months or years for treatment available in the US now or forced to deal with less effective treatments. More so, with such wide spread fiscal drain; areas, individuals and whole groups of people will be denied healthcare.

Britain has a nationalised healthcare system where all hospitals are run by the government so that's a bad example, I'm not sure what Canada's system is so I can't comment on it. However that is not what is being presented by the Obama administration He wants the private hospitals to run as they are but have an additional service for those who can't afford them. How many times do I have to explain you will not loose your current choices and the current system will not be altered. Don't believe me? Lets here from the man himself

Originally Posted by Obama

First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.

I'm not explaining that point again. The difference between Universal and Nationalised healthcare systems are blatantly obvious. Stop confusing the two.

Your first and third point about taxes are accurate, but still debatable (but once again that's not what I'm debating).

Really... Lets look at it this way, what you think is going on and what is actually happening have nothing to do with each other. From balancedpolitics.org the pros and cons of universal heathcare are listed as 7 pros to 16 cons...
BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)

I like the way you provided a source that gave unbiased pros and cons of universal healthcare. What confuses me is why you then went on to argue against the pros without a source to support your arguments. Why bring up a source and say the bits you don't like are BS? And, for the last time, I'm not here to debate the pros and cons of a universal healthcare plan. The fact that America is the only developed country in the world not to have one speaks for itself. It might work without it but having one isn't going to break the bank.

Ok then call it civil union and not marrage. If it isn't marrage then your arguement doesn't exist

When I say marriage you immediately assume I'm talking about a religious ceremony. A marriage is also a legal relationship. So a civil union is marriage, just not a religious one. That's fairly easy to grasp, I'm sure you understand it but don't want to let argument go.

I'm against the term Gay Marrage more so then the act there of...

You'd vote against the bill because you don't like the word 'marriage' in it? Wow. No offence, but that's pretty pathetic.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

I'm not debating whether or not universal healthcare should be introduced in the US, I'm debating your understanding of universal healthcare which is flawed.

Universal Healthcare is not universal to all nations, universal healthcare in Britian, Canda & Cuba are all different. But its "Universal Healthcare..."

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

Your first and third point about taxes are accurate, but still debatable (but once again that's not what I'm debating).

So you want to debate an issue in brawd terms with no clear definition and without addressing factors which make it undesirable? Thats like saying you want to have sex without getting lil willy wet, it kinda follows allong with the arguement...

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

I like the way you provided a source that gave unbiased pros and cons of universal healthcare. What confuses me is why you then went on to argue against the pros without a source to support your arguments. Why bring up a source and say the bits you don't like are BS?

Actually the cons pretty much made the same arguement, I just highlighted the one's which directly effect the issue.

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

And, for the last time, I'm not here to debate the pros and cons of a universal healthcare plan. The fact that America is the only developed country in the world not to have one speaks for itself. It might work without it but having one isn't going to break the bank.

So what because we aren't Socialized we are some how less of a nation? Its simple, you work hard and you reap the rewards, you no work you reap charity. Forcing me to pay for a problem my nation creates and expects me to work for is slavery...

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

When I say marriage you immediately assume I'm talking about a religious ceremony. A marriage is also a legal relationship. So a civil union is marriage, just not a religious one. That's fairly easy to grasp, I'm sure you understand it but don't want to let argument go.You'd vote against the bill because you don't like the word 'marriage' in it? Wow. No offence, but that's pretty pathetic.

Ok so if I say Sabath or Mass you don't think religioous terminology? But if I say Holiday or Meeting you don't think Corperation or Government terminology. I have zero issue with a gay civil union and if its a matter of rights and privliges then it shouldn't matter what you call it. But if the state ever comes running with a Government Sabbath or call me in for a Mass on an issue, I'm gonna be sceptical...

Originally Posted by Obama

First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.

And this matters because? The Bill Says...
From: Health Care Bill - Key Excerpts

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED
Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose YOUR HC Benefits for you. YOU have no choice
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Govt mandates linguistic apropropriate services Example – Translation for illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. #AARP members – YOUR Health care WILL be rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid eligible Individuals will be automatically.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against this Govt Monopoly
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400k & above who does not provide public option will pay an additional 8% tax on all payroll
pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who do not provide public option pays additional 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed an additional 2.5% of income
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Administration (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial/personal records
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, professional judgement, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission-Govt will penalize you.
Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have option to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan
Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs patients
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “advisory care planning consultation” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization Like ACORN?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services

NBC Meet the Press Armey: Healthcare Bill is Frightening
From: Hulu - NBC Meet the Press: Armey: Health Care Bill is 'Frightening'

What "it" says and what Obama says are very different...

[FerretBone]

Forget all the small print. I'm not paying for other peoples problems. Which is what this all boils down to.
Why dont we have a free chow hall for every American to eat three meals a day? Free water? Free gas, free roads to drive on? Whooops, taxes, abuse, Gov't regulations no compatition!!!!

The DMV, Public School, Post Office, VA, Tax Office, Court House, ever be to any of those?
Long lines, pissed off employees, Shitty service and quality, not to mention it takes all dam day to get anything done. Yeah sign me up!

This could be all Smoke and mirrors, mirrors and smoke, yeah I know.

BUT

Bottom line, and I'll say it. Why the fuck am I paying for YOU?

Explain that first, before we even get into all the small print.

[3nKrYp7]

Originally Posted by Draven

So you want to debate an issue in brawd terms with no clear definition and without addressing factors which make it undesirable? Thats like saying you want to have sex without getting lil willy wet, it kinda follows allong with the arguement...

I said I'm not debating the pros and cons of universal healthcare. I.e. I don't even want to have 'sex'.

Actually the cons pretty much made the same arguement, I just highlighted the one's which directly effect the issue.

I was refering to "Thats BS","Thats a lie". If you don't trust your source how do you expect me to? And why even bring it up?

So what because we aren't Socialized we are some how less of a nation?

No, that's a straw man argument right there. I just said that a universal healthcare plan wouldn't break the bank [in reference to your tax comments].

Ok so if I say Sabath or Mass you don't think religioous terminology? But if I say Holiday or Meeting you don't think Corperation or Government terminology. I have zero issue with a gay civil union and if its a matter of rights and privliges then it shouldn't matter what you call it. But if the state ever comes running with a Government Sabbath or call me in for a Mass on an issue, I'm gonna be sceptical...

You're an idiot. I'm sorry but if you fail to grasp the fact that words often have more than one definition or understanding I can't argue the point with you. You've no problem with a gay civil union? Good, you've no problem with gay marriage. That's a fact. Gay marriage is the more commonly used of the two terms but they mean the same thing. What you think of when you hear the word marriage is your own problem, not mine.

The government would never run the Sabbath or Masses, that's completely irrelevant to everything discussed. Religion has nothing to do with gay marriage, most gays don't give a shit about religion.

And this matters because? The Bill Says...
From: Health Care Bill - Key Excerpts

Wow, you pull a list from a republican nominee site with no context. Fun. I'll address the ones you've emphasized.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure

Yeah, that'll be a study into what needs to be provided. It will not be an IRS audit as inferred.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Yeah, not much point in giving a guy a $1,000 surgery when some pills will do the job. Doctors will of course have a big say in the decision making. And considering the Govt committee won't be hoping to make a profit and MUST provide the required care it will be a much better option than having a business decide, especially when they hire people to look for ways out of providing care.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED

Addressed later under the other 'rationing' claim.

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose YOUR HC Benefits for you. YOU have no choice

Yeah, you're getting free healthcare. They decide what plan will be best for you otherwise you'd have everyone choosing the premium plan when they only need the basic.

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

No, complete bullshit.

Originally Posted by Obama

Let's start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That's not true.

If it's an emergency they will receive care (as is currently done) but not if they're trying to claim it for anything other than an emergency.

Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued

"enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;"

If you can afford it they can redirect you to a recommended facility. Designed to stop people abusing the system (you wouldn't want Bill Gates claiming public insurance, would you?)

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control

"A health insurance exchange is an organized marketplace for the purchase of health insurance set up as a governmental or quasi-governmental entity to help insurers comply with consumer protections, compete in cost-efficient ways, and to facilitate the expansion of insurance coverage to more people. Exchanges do not bear risk themselves – they are not insurers. Rather, they would contract with private insurers and possibly offer a public plan option to cover specified populations" - wiki

Saying it will bring private plans under Govt control is a gross exageration and flat-out propaganda.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare

Yep there are different level plans. You can read into this as 'some people get less benefits than others' or 'those who need additional benefits receive them'.

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid eligible Individuals will be automatically.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

"AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID- The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) [my note: this is an employer/employee] and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid."

If you're not insured you automatically get insurance, that's the whole point of a universal healthcare plan.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Administration (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial/personal records

The use this information it "might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof)"

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same

Pg 241, Line 6-8 reads "Service categories established under this paragraph shall apply without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service.’.". It's setting out the guidelines for all paragraphs following however I can't seem to find one that refers to pay. Maybe you can dig it up.

I will speculate however that physicians will receive a base pay and then can claim for whomever they've treated. That's generally how sub-contractors work and under a universal healthcare plan GPs work as sub-contractors. Also Section 1123 outlines they will receive 'efficiency bonuses' of 5%.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

"Sec. 1131. Incorporating productivity improvements into market basket updates that do not already incorporate such improvements.

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

This is a direct quote, not sure the point of it though.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

"(C) PROHIBITION ON EXPANSION OF FACILITY CAPACITY- Except as provided in paragraph (2), the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds of the hospital at any time on or after the date of the enactment of this subsection are no greater than the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds, respectively, as of such date."

Paragraph 2 gives some of the exceptions,

• ESTABLISHMENT (The hospital itself my apply for expansion)
• OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY INPUT (The community my apply or petition for expansion)
• TIMING FOR IMPLEMENTATION (You have to wait a month after the bill is implemented [so they can get stuff ready])
• REGULATIONS (The expansion plan must meet specific regulations)

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan

"(iv) AUTHORITY TO DISQUALIFY CERTAIN PLANS- In applying clauses (ii) and (iii), the Secretary may determine not to identify a Medicare Advantage plan if the Secretary has identified deficiencies in the plan’s compliance with rules for such plans under this part."

If current plans fail to meet certain standards they will be discontinued. Happens anyway otherwise you'd have a bunch of conmen setting up plans and ripping people off.

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage

"[i]Sec. 1308.
The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy when provided by the public sector. Seems fairly obvious to me.

READ ME

Chances are I'm not going to respond to your next post. You seem to be getting caught up in the word marriage for our gay rights discussion and you pull shit directly from unreliable sources without doing the tiniest bit of research to check how valid they are in the HC discussion.

In any reasonable debate you'd be laughed out of the thread and as such I'm no longer going to humour you.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

Chances are I'm not going to respond to your next post. You seem to be getting caught up in the word marriage for our gay rights discussion and you pull shit directly from unreliable sources without doing the tiniest bit of research to check how valid they are in the HC discussion.

In any reasonable debate you'd be laughed out of the thread and as such I'm no longer going to humour you.

No you'll respond because you look like an idiot with much of what you say, you don't want to debate universal healthcare, thats fine except you said in a previous post (08-26-2009 08:56 PM)...

Originally Posted by 3nKrYp7

I'm not debating whether or not universal healthcare should be introduced in the US, I'm debating your understanding of universal healthcare which is flawed.

And as I pointed out not universal healthcare is universal to everywhere else, Britian, Canada, Cuba & China all have universal healthcare but its conducted diffently in each case. If the sources aren't accrate how about you apply the forum rules and list counter point sources? No its easier to call me an idiot...

I'll drop the Gay Marrage issue cause I don't/won't vote for or against it, I simply don't care. But, on the healthcare issue exactly what are debating? My understanding of a bill that says I have to pay for others or that a hospital (which is aprivate business) has to get someone else's permission before improving their business. WTF?

Or they get to pick my plan, who cares if I have to pay taxes on it anyway right? So what plan do i get? Oh its based on my finances & so they get go invade my bank account, why?
What happens if I don't want what they are selling me? I don't have the option to go somewhere else, they use the same regulations and guides as the others...

Look its simple, personal responsibility = personal freedom & government responsibility = government slavery. Personally I see no issues with self-treatment. Fact is the Government regulated us into this problem and it is going to regulate us out of it. Why because their ideas have worked so far?

[GKoszegi]

I'm a leftist extremist, and would like to see more communism around the world. Eventually we would get it right. And I know the argument that "It only works on paper" and I don't disagree, but can't we hope for equality? And some way to change that something like 10-ish percent of the worlds population control 90-ish percent of the wealth?