- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Why would anybody vote that entitlements are always neccessary?
Sometimes they are and sometimes people can fend for themselves.
Last edited by NGNM85; 05-29-11 at 11:23 PM.
Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky
But there are those with bad intentions. They want to lull us into a false sense of security. To grow the Govt. To have the power over our lives.
The best thing for us is to have smaller Govt. I don't want go live under a repressive regime.
We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939
I do feel that entitlements are necessary and think that that the only poor folks in this country should be those that wish to be homeless and there are some out here that due to their mental health are very happy living up in the streets.
There is no damn good reason to where ANYBODY living in the U.S.A. legally should have to suffer without food, shelter and a J-O-B. And how the hell can we expect folks to find jobs when they sending em all away? Do not blame the victims. Blame the Powers That Be that are holding folks down all the while making mad money per year.
lf we/U.S.A can send money to all these countries to help their peeps? Why can't we do it here at home. We could feed, clothe and assure a job for all people if we would just get our stuff straight
~Following My Own Flow~
I am. In Minneapolis, we have independent programs that provide free health options. It's good to know I can go to the clinic for free if I really need to, since I am having a lapse in insurance for the next couple months.
But Minnesota has a pretty decent economy, compared to a lot of places in the US right now. Not everywhere does. Not everywhere can afford it.
I'm not more deserving of health care than someone living somewhere less well-off. I'm just lucky.
You seem to be under the false impression that in order to have public health, we would need to get rid of private. Most countries with public health care still have private insurance. And here's what's cool.
The reality of having to compete with public health care drives the prices of private health care down to a fraction of the cost, and with all the same benefits and more. It also means private insurance companies break coverage down into more customizable chunks, so you don't have to buy anything other than what you need.
Let's say you buy insurance for a particular kind of specialist coverage, because you have a disease requiring specialist attention. It may expidite the referral process, allow you more doctors to choose from, and possibly reduce wait times (though wait times are often exaggerated by those against public health care). And the rest of your health coverage needs can be covered by the public sector, since you don't require specialist attention.
Even if you opt to go entirely private, the cost would be much less than what you pay now. Even if you include the taxes you pay for the public system.
This is the sort of flexibility and cost effectiveness I've seen in Europe and New Zealand, which I spent a combined 3.5 years living in.
I had to go to an English A&E once (like our ER). This was in London, which is obviously a huge city. Going to the ER in any huge American city means waiting for 4-6 hours and even if you have insurance, paying a co-pay. If you don't, you're looking at a bare minimum of $350, going all the way to tens of thousands of dollars.
I was in-and-out in under an hour. And I didn't pay a dime. And still the UK pays proportionally way less for their healthcare than we do for ours.
Having a public option doesn't take away your options. It actually increases them, but introducing heavy competition. Nothing is more competitive than "free." And it is possible to run public health efficiently and cost-effectively.
Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-30-11 at 12:26 AM.
Theres alot of americans as intelligent and educated as they are have a level of naivette about what life really is way below them.
In their defense, its something you have to see with your own eyes, you cant read about it or have someone explain it to you to realize, that public assistance is necessary for some people.
Having said that, I believe theres too many grubbers and phonies suckin on the govts teat that not only dont deserve it but dont need it.
The teaparty and the far right and the young callous rich kids need to come to the realization that there are millions of americans that really really CANNOT afford to buy the basics and pay for thier own healthcare and save for retirement, because its not going to change and one way or the other they will pay for it.
BTW, I do mean stuff that is NOT expired, fresh and just has to be tossed cause they are ending a day. I am not saying to feed anybody the crap. I am talking about perfectly good food, clothing, etc, that gets tossed due to having to be tossed over BS sue saftey rules.
Last edited by Kali; 05-30-11 at 12:41 AM.
~Following My Own Flow~