On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Question 1: Are you for it? > > Question 2: Are you against it? >
In a representative democracy, this "for or against it" vote never comes to the people. I'm supposed to cast my lot with various gangs who make promises but may have very little idea how to translate those promises into reality.
They're not social engineers, most of them. Many are actually superstitious monkey-brain Biblical literalists with no serious interest in the real world or how it works.
> Question 3, if you are for it: Are you for increasing it to the degree > I put forth above? If not, to what degree are you for it? >
You want us to fantasize that we're in this little voting booth asked to vote up or down on a program that is not currently before the voters, am I right? Or is this actually someone's bill, a law in the progress of being passed?
I can't really be "for it" by voting (nor can you).
What's needed is a comprehensive plan to deliver health care to people in need.
95% of the resources and focus should be towards non-USA citizens who are less than 4% of the world's population.
I'm against the 4% consuming more than it should need. I support preventative care.
Do you agree that USAers should not consume more than their fair share of health care resources?
I think your blind faith in Krugman and "mathematical economics" leads you to beat around the bush on this question. You think Americans should be permitted to consume profligately *and* continue to have quasi-infinite funds to spend on a global military *and* provide universal health care for its citizens.
I'm skeptical they have the means, the right, or the ability to have both high living standards and a non-democratically run system of occupy camps (bases) around the world. Currently their choice is to sacrifice the health of their citizens in favor of pursuing fantasies of military domination. Their choice. The costs have been high in terms of living standards.
Imagining a fictional voting booth where we can say "yes" to universal healthcare in isolation and not have to worry about foreign policy is idle fantasy disguised as being a moral champion of something. It's self deception.
> As far as I'm concerned, your venomous rhetoric against out federal > government is a form of beating around the bush to avoid stating your > positions clearly, which tells me that you actually are against > increased funding for Medicare - and other such programs such as > Medicaid and Food Stamps and VA Hospitals and all the other good > things that our federal government does, especially to the degree that > I put forth above and in my many past posts. >
I think that part of the government might become better integrated into a more global system of health care provision administered by doctors without borders types (non-nationalists) i.e. the health care industry, having a strong STEM component, is globalizing more quickly than some other industries.
I prefer to work on the problems faced by those without nation-states.
Others with highly paid jobs as health care planners are working on the USA's problems.
The US tells its people its the richest nation in the world. It has no excuses then. If it decides to squander its wealth on weaponry while the people smoke and eat fast food and die of complications therefrom, that's a pity -- but it's also what we've come to expect from a violent and ignorant nation full of vidiots (TV watching couch potatoes).