Discussion in 'Online & DL Teaching' started by graymatter, Apr 26, 2013.
No difference between Barack Hussein Obama and George Walker Bush?
From the perspective of spending my hard earned money, there is not really much difference between Bush and Obama. They certainly have different agenda's, however they both kept / keep government fat and happy. For people like them with a lifetime of political service, they can't imagine any other way than to take money from the people to expand their idea of a perfect society.
What's really sad about that is the American people are the ones who advocate for this type of behavior because we are the ones who put these people in office.
It's funny how much some people want to protest the fact that government takes from some people and others benefit from it, even though they've done just that themselves. Public schools, police, fire, roads, the military, just about any collective arrangement is like that. Yeah, we're rugged individualists, until it comes to our stuff.
I met a retired Navy guy who simply hates Obama. Calls him a socialist. Yet this guy receives at least three hellacious benefits from government: military retirement pay, Social Security, and Medicare. All three involve taking from others and giving to him. And no, he didn't necessarily "earn them"; they're the same things the GOP calls "entitlements." Before these were developed--and that would be in the last century, with some exceptions for military retirement--he'd be that rugged individualist. And he'd likely be dead by now.
You didn't do it on your own. You're not doing it on your own. You're not going to do it on your own. Quit trying to close the door behind you. Be a person.
And the college degree we have all earned are not at all subsidised with other people's money at all? I am with Rich Douglas on this one. I think we have all benefited from other people's sacrifices one way or the other.
I'd prefer that security, schools, firefighters, and roads were provided privately, actually. And I don't think it's any more hypocritical for libertarians to drive on public roads than I do for leftists to buy health insurance.
Perhaps, if the only two options were that either government does something or it cannot happen. But that's a serious failure of imagination.
I suppose political rhetoric has a tradition of dehumanizing the opposition, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to say that someone isn't a person simply for believing that helpless people can be cared for by charity rather than force.
The modern world--absent the U.S.--has realized that health care is a societal issue, not an individual one. When we provide for everyone, everyone benefits.
It is stupid--really idiotic--to channel our health care through employers. It is inefficient, expensive, and filled with gaps. Those gaps are incredibly expensive to fill, but we pay it and do it anyway.
Everyone gets health care sooner or later. But many get it only when things are catastrophic--and extremely expensive. Caring for the uninsured is way more expensive than providing them health care for free--managing their health instead of paying for one crisis after another.
As for providing all of those other things privately, we'd have nothing but horrible systems that only cater to the privileged few. The rest can just crawl back into their shanties.
In Massachusetts everyone is required to have healthcare and there are a number of different versions of Medicaid to cover the gaps. Republicans don't like to hear this but this plan was crafted by Mitt Romney when he was the Governor. Here's the part they like even less: it's working. For the most part, there are a small set of managed care companies keeping an eye on things and I'm told they're pretty strict. No one here is complaining.
Separate names with a comma.