rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 9:10:37 GMT -7
So what is the bright line that will ensure that the new definition of "rights" will not later include a house and a car? I could make a pretty cogent argument that those are 'needs' as well. Can't just ignore the slippery slope. and where is the assumption that we already haven't ignored that slope in ensuring that profits are the cornerstone upon which success is already measured? whose expense has that been at? In the case of the banking industry--who really bails them out, whether in the previous administration or this one? We do--at our own expense In the case that I posed, where one the one hand, you have the argument which says that doctors, who, you have to admit, are already intertwined in a weird symbiosis with insurers to begin with, can demand that their argument for their "survival" (please, tell someone from the ghetto that "survival" is synonymous with "profit") be heard this is only my humble opinion, but if they're making enough money to pay dues to an association which is going to spend millions fighting for their exclusive rights to terms and definitions of illness, even though their work has nothing to do with that specific field of treatment, I would suggest that they are doing okay...probably better than okay, and further, that since doctors (psychiatrists are already at the top of the food chain in that particular field) are already the critical means by which the pharmaceutical industry can thrive (not just survive) their "survival" as professionals isn't in question. So why is this being argued to the Nth degree? Where could such dollars be more responsibly spent? Is it MY RIGHT to question that? Well, I guess you could argue it...but I have. To my doctors, who dutifully pay their dues to the AMA
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 9:28:42 GMT -7
2007 % of Federal Outlays National Defense: 20.2% Human Resources: 64.4% (Health, Ed, Medicare, Social Security) Physical Resources: 4.9% (Energy, Natural Resources & Environment) Net Interest: 8.7% Other Functions: 4.8% (Int'l Affairs, Science, Ag., Justice, Gen Gov., Allowances) Undistributed Receipts: -3.0% 2007 % of GDP National Defense: 4.2% Human Resources: 12.9% (Health, Ed, Medicare, Social Security) Physical Resources: 1.0% (Energy, Natural Resources & Environment) Net Interest: 1.7% Other Functions: 1.0% (Int'l Affairs, Science, Ag., Justice, Gen Gov., Allowances) Undistributed Receipts: -0.6% I love this...now remember, Ayn Rand didn't believe in public education either--it ought not be a "right". No "right" to an education or the money that funds it, and all of its derivatives one should "earn" it. In our system, never mind how, it's just the way things ought to be done. No one has the 'right' to health care either. That includes babies....the elderly, who, don't ask me how, are supposed to go on "earning" it, because doing so is a lifelong deal, not a "right" or an "entitlement".... if you look at the rhetoric, this is really what she means this is part of the reason I don't like extremes either...because they argue that the "line" at which we should stop ought to be theirs to determine, not mine or yours. The government ought have no say either, even though it is, ideally, the "voice" of the people. It is on the self-determinism of the rugged, purist, individualist...he is the one who should concern himself with his own fate, he drives it and no matter the others. Even though this isn't how they say it, this is what they are saying.... The Democrats are obfuscating what is obvious--and any "change" they are currently proposing won't institute "socialism", it'll be financed partly on the backs of those whose Medicare/Medicaid benefits are reduced in order to contribute to the cost of "change" how is that change? Perry consistently argued against CHIP here in Texas even though it has been repeatedly shown to reduce overall costs of emergent care for children. You reduce those benefits, use the money from the middle class and the most wealthy...it's being spread around and those least prepared or able to contribute will still do so and throughout the whole mess, millions will still be wasted from the varying sectors of the health care industry, millions that could be spent on all aspects of health care so Web wouldn't have to worry about who draws what line where ...from the insurers, who pony up to make sure their friendlies stay in office from the doctors who do the same, and fund lawsuits such as the one I described, and from the professionals who have to hire their own lawyers to fight back over frivolous territorial disputes over words from the government, who is woefully, poorly accredited or practiced at monitoring its own accounting practices, let alone its own ethics--millions more to waste
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 21, 2009 9:41:42 GMT -7
Why don't we simply mandate a minimum and maximum income for all and that would make everything affordable. After all water and prices tend to find their own level,
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 9:48:05 GMT -7
the argument here juxtaposes the ethics of the "up-from-the-bootstraps" mentality, that Puritan "ethic" of ours with the notion of "rights" that somehow meddle with this...theoretically, another's "rights" impose upon mine, if they get something considered an "entitlement" that I had to work to provide
to me, this juxatposition defies not only the values I was raised with, but some logic too. Because, in my family history, where my parents are the children of immigrants who used their resourcefulness, ingenuity and hard work to make a living and "start over" here
their reality was that they used support in one form or another in order to accomplish what they did. None worked or lived in a vaccuum, and from what I know, all learned how to be a part of, and help in their communities, once they got settled. That was the "work ethic" too. If someone else needs something, you help. Both my parents clearly remembered that this ethic was especially important during WWII. No one was his own island.
Yet we want to strive toward this, in defining what is "earned" and "mine" in terms of what I consider to be among the most fundamental of human rights. Safety. Good health. Sanity. Education. I would much rather these be legislated responsibly, monitored responsibly, and have the money be accounted for responsibly.
granted, these are just my values, based on my individual biases. But they were formed with the understanding that this whole "bootstraps" mentality is oftentimes a fallacy.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 9:49:58 GMT -7
Why don't we simply mandate a minimum and maximum income for all and that would make everything affordable. After all water and prices tend to find their own level, because you'd still be arguing against a fallacy, that's why Who says we can "mandate" anything and do a good job? ;D And, who gets to define "good"?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 21, 2009 10:21:21 GMT -7
the argument here juxtaposes the ethics of the "up-from-the-bootstraps" mentality, that Puritan "ethic" of ours with the notion of "rights" that somehow meddle with this...theoretically, another's "rights" impose upon mine, if they get something considered an "entitlement" that I had to work to provide to me, this juxatposition defies not only the values I was raised with, but some logic too. Because, in my family history, where my parents are the children of immigrants who used their resourcefulness, ingenuity and hard work to make a living and "start over" here their reality was that they used support in one form or another in order to accomplish what they did. None worked or lived in a vaccuum, and from what I know, all learned how to be a part of, and help in their communities, once they got settled. That was the "work ethic" too. If someone else needs something, you help. Both my parents clearly remembered that this ethic was especially important during WWII. No one was his own island. Yet we want to strive toward this, in defining what is "earned" and "mine" in terms of what I consider to be among the most fundamental of human rights. Safety. Good health. Sanity. Education. I would much rather these be legislated responsibly, monitored responsibly, and have the money be accounted for responsibly. granted, these are just my values, based on my individual biases. But they were formed with the understanding that this whole "bootstraps" mentality is oftentimes a fallacy. Yeah but everything you just described was done by people who exercised their RIGHT to provide this help, not people ordered to provide this help, or having things taken from them to help another - all was freely given
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 10:49:43 GMT -7
well, theoretically yes, but during the war, things were rationed for the good of the troops and the good of the country in the case of the great-great relatives, their "right" was to contribute when they could, but as good Catholics, they were also mandated to by their faith....so it was both a right and an obligation, mandated by an authority higher than the government. And this was on top of what the government taxed them with and sorry, but they did "have things taken from them" to help the needy, both parents remembered money and items being taken to help others during the war, Snil. My great uncle kept having to pay fees to some government entity for something or another having to do with a relative's immigration, and he worked for the government and observed that only certain groups were targeted to pay such "fees", which points to something having gone on at the time.... But to embrace the argument which is that, something will be taken from you in order to help someone else, what will be taken? How is that not already the case now, even on an individual level? The argument is that in order to level the playing field, be a socialist and ensure that no one has more than we do, right? When we tried to qualify for CHIP in order to get our kids ensured, we learned that we made too much and our cars were too new. In theory, one of us would have to let a car be "taken" in order to qualify....we could have gotten a cheaper car, but then the enrollment period would have expired in the mean time. In our case, to get our own children qualified for existing benefits under a Republican administration, we couldn't afford to do it. So, I could argue that there were the underpinnings of socialist restraint there, they worked against us because the rules sought to "even out" our earnings by limiting them and we still couldn't manage it. It's not the administration or the party, it is the thinking that needs to shift. There is this idea that we shouldn't be forced to "share" what we earn. But we already do. As demonstrated by our own tax return, we share a hell of a lot for a family our size. In fact, we can't write off what others do because we play by the rules. There is this idea that we shouldn't be forced into giving up what we already do and that we shouldn't be forced into giving up more...especially if it's to sustain someone who isn't deserving or hasn't earned it. But if you're going to argue this one way, then it should be argued the other which means that the very well-off shouldn't benefit by tax write-offs which enable them to keep more, so that their teens can go to Europe for the summer, financed with the profits made from investments their parents scored with because the banks allowed for illegal activity while we paid our bills every month and had nothing left to invest in, other than say, our children's health
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 11:08:32 GMT -7
arguing against the extreme: where is it mandated that "taking from" you to "give to me" automatically signals your demise while I get "more"?
isn't that what I just illustrated already happens anyway? I know it's a lousy example, but I remember having a particularly enlightening conversation with the father of one of my son's schoolmates; the man was employed by a local radio station. He used to live in a beautiful home, up on the mountain; the family has since moved away. During that conversation, he and I talked money some, because he was talking about sending his child to a private college and he was complaining about how much of their investment dollars were going to fund this. During that conversation, he joked at how he and his friends enjoyed cheating on tax write offs, and he rationalized this behavior by saying he had no intention of allowing more than what was necessary to go to the "wrong" places, wink, wink. He firmly believed that welfare cheats were wrong, but he saw his own behavior in more noble terms--he saw what he was cheating the government out of as someone else's burden.
My husband later commented on how I should have paid more attention and asked for specifics so that I could have reported him as a tax cheat. All I remembered feeling was slightly foolish for playing by the rules, as I heard him trivialize the ethics of doing so.
I know we are forking over lots of money, we're sure in a place where we'd be better off keeping it, yet we fork it over, don't benefit by it and we pay our own way. We aren't getting richer, and barring any catastrophic event which would make my kids orphans, they aren't likely to do much better-statistically speaking, if things stay the way they are
what we are looking at in our specific case is more debt, in fact. Either way.
But I hear a lot of arguments that socialism is coming, by way of the Obama adminstration. Rationed care in health care. This, and worse, is already "regulated" and mandated by third party payers. You posted on how profits are made in health care, Snil. And after you posted, you read the New Yorker article that specified how some doctors order an undue and medically unnecessary amount of tests when they stand to benefit. Yet, we still hear more about the threat of "socialism" when models of standardized and statistically needed care are introduced. Talk about arguing in extremes.
The protests against the government being at the helm are good ones, and many are valid, particularly those which target government fraud and waste
but what do you have in place now that ensures anything better? Particularly when things are getting worse for most people who do not benefit by the third party payer system which now rations care? I mean, what else is the term "pre-existing injury" used for? ;D
If you want to argue against the 'right' of health care, against the threats of socialized medicine, reduced profits and earnings by the medical community, how come there's no argument which addresses more scrutiny and controls in each of these existing problem areas now?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 21, 2009 11:13:28 GMT -7
OK everyine has an undeniable right to health care. How do you make this happen
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 11:27:11 GMT -7
OK everyine has an undeniable right to health care. How do you make this happen you make it less of a commodity and more of a community resource, as you demonstrated could be done, that's how show me the means by which the existing system I've discussed just above your post, is superior....less problematic and more financially stable for our population as a whole where is Texas in terms of its health care status, nationwide? look at the numbers you came up with. and that is with the existing abuses within systemic approach as it exists now
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 11:33:23 GMT -7
I don't have a problem arguing for an individuals "right" to health care...and certainly not in the face of how the system is abused, money wasted and misused now...if not by third party payers, then by others, including vendors and recipients
and I find little validity in the arguments against an individual's "right" to health care when it comes from someone who would see the commodification of our existing system as being the pinnacle of what delivery should look like, or what it ought to be
either way, one is still rewarding what is wrong, and most often, this happens at my expense . as a tax payer. And either way, it removes none of the obligation I feel as a human being, to help out with what I have, when I can do so.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 21, 2009 12:22:32 GMT -7
Granted, this is just Wikki, but it's a salient enough introduction: Peikoff's political positions reflect those of Objectivism. He supports laissez-faire capitalism, arguing that the role of government in society should be limited to protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud. He opposes taxation, public education, welfare, business regulations, etc. He also opposes laws regulating pornography, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc.
Peikoff endorsed John Kerry (while nevertheless thinking of Kerry as a "disgustingly bad" candidate) against George W. Bush (whom he called "apocalyptically bad"), on the basis of Bush's religiosity and his refusal to crush Islamic regimes, especially Iran, along with his "doomed" economic policies. In advance of the 2006 elections, Peikoff recommended voting only for Democrats, to forestall what he sees is a rise in influence of the religious right, adding:
Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."[16] In 2008, Peikoff refused to vote for either major party's ticket, saying that John McCain "comes across like a tired moron," calling Barack Obama a "lying phony" and Joseph Biden "a hilarious windbag," while saying of Sarah Palin that she is "an opportunist struggling to learn how to become a moron, a phony and a windbag." [17]
Peikoff is also known for campaigning on behalf of Elián González's right to remain in Florida, rather than returning to his father in Cuba[18], stating that "To send a child to rot in the prison of Cuba for the alleged sake of his own well-being is criminal hypocrisy. To send him there in order to preserve his father's rights is absurdity, since there are no parental or other rights in Cuba. To send him there because 'He needs a father, no matter what' is a mindless bromide. Does he need a father who has no choice but to watch his son being broken in mind and starved in body?"
Peikoff claims that Palestinian people prior to the establishment of the State of Israel consisted solely of "nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain," and that "the Arabs" today have no concept of property rights; indeed, that their "primitivist" antagonism to such rights is the root cause of Arab terrorism. He argues that Israel is a moral beacon which should not return any territory to Arabs or even negotiate with them.[2] Peikoff further argues that all Middle Eastern oil reserves are the rightful property of the West, "whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible." He advocates the outright destruction of "terrorist states," especially Iran, "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States.[3]
He is a supporter of abortion rights but criticizes defenders of abortion who label themselves "pro-choice", arguing that the term ignores the deeper philosophical issues involved.[Well, hell Rosa, if nothing else you gotta like his take on Sarah Palin. Outta curiosity, why did you post this? Was it to damage his cred with me or others? Isn't that a bit like attacking the messenger instead of debating the content?
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 21, 2009 13:15:43 GMT -7
arguing against the extreme: where is it mandated that "taking from" you to "give to me" automatically signals your demise while I get "more"? The protests against the government being at the helm are good ones, and many are valid, particularly those which target government fraud and waste but what do you have in place now that ensures anything better? Particularly when things are getting worse for most people who do not benefit by the third party payer system which now rations care? I mean, what else is the term "pre-existing injury" used for? ;D One poll number I'm repeatedly hearing (granted, it's from conservative talk radio) is that 85% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. What's to ensure that the government won't actually make things worse for the 85% in the effort to make the 15% happy? Health care is a hell of a thing to let Obama gamble with in the same slipshod, push it through w/ no real debate manner he did the "stimulus" bill. You say protests against putting the government in control are valid, so what should we do? Pay lip service to the validity but forge ahead anyway? You're saying you want to "argue against the extreme". Does "extremism" in this debate only flow in one direction? Is it right to concern ourselves with the perils of socialized health care or is that what health care should be?
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 21, 2009 13:35:35 GMT -7
OK everyine has an undeniable right to health care. How do you make this happen you make it less of a commodity and more of a community resource, as you demonstrated could be done, that's how And what would be the incentive to go into the practice of medicine? Pure altruism? I think there would be a lot fewer doctors, but then, I'm just cynical like that.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 21, 2009 13:50:46 GMT -7
Granted, this is just Wikki, but it's a salient enough introduction: Peikoff's political positions reflect those of Objectivism. He supports laissez-faire capitalism, arguing that the role of government in society should be limited to protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud. He opposes taxation, public education, welfare, business regulations, etc. He also opposes laws regulating pornography, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc.
Peikoff endorsed John Kerry (while nevertheless thinking of Kerry as a "disgustingly bad" candidate) against George W. Bush (whom he called "apocalyptically bad"), on the basis of Bush's religiosity and his refusal to crush Islamic regimes, especially Iran, along with his "doomed" economic policies. In advance of the 2006 elections, Peikoff recommended voting only for Democrats, to forestall what he sees is a rise in influence of the religious right, adding:
Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."[16] In 2008, Peikoff refused to vote for either major party's ticket, saying that John McCain "comes across like a tired moron," calling Barack Obama a "lying phony" and Joseph Biden "a hilarious windbag," while saying of Sarah Palin that she is "an opportunist struggling to learn how to become a moron, a phony and a windbag." [17]
Peikoff is also known for campaigning on behalf of Elián González's right to remain in Florida, rather than returning to his father in Cuba[18], stating that "To send a child to rot in the prison of Cuba for the alleged sake of his own well-being is criminal hypocrisy. To send him there in order to preserve his father's rights is absurdity, since there are no parental or other rights in Cuba. To send him there because 'He needs a father, no matter what' is a mindless bromide. Does he need a father who has no choice but to watch his son being broken in mind and starved in body?"
Peikoff claims that Palestinian people prior to the establishment of the State of Israel consisted solely of "nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain," and that "the Arabs" today have no concept of property rights; indeed, that their "primitivist" antagonism to such rights is the root cause of Arab terrorism. He argues that Israel is a moral beacon which should not return any territory to Arabs or even negotiate with them.[2] Peikoff further argues that all Middle Eastern oil reserves are the rightful property of the West, "whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible." He advocates the outright destruction of "terrorist states," especially Iran, "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States.[3]
He is a supporter of abortion rights but criticizes defenders of abortion who label themselves "pro-choice", arguing that the term ignores the deeper philosophical issues involved.[Well, hell Rosa, if nothing else you gotta like his take on Sarah Palin. Outta curiosity, why did you post this? Was it to damage his cred with me or others? Isn't that a bit like attacking the messenger instead of debating the content? why are you assuming I posted this with the expressed intention of damaging his credibility Web? Whether or not you agree with him, I think his perspective speaks volumes, and I remember this mentality when I was required to challenge it in a paper when I took a philosophy class in college. Rand was who I was representing in the argument, and it was a difficult assignment. Because I had to argue there was no basis for empathy. Such concepts were fairly useless to that level of "elite" thinking. Ahem. I don't really care what he thinks about politicians...he and other narcissits like him are an entity unto themselves. I was using his ponderous opinions to illustrate the mindset with which he argues for those poor doctors, who won't be allowed to practice, let alone make gobs of money. Like Rand argued for morality, the basis of which, in her mind, encompassed infidelity
|
|