Date: Dec 13, 2012 12:15 PM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: Democracy - how to achieve it?
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
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
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
> 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