>>>>>>>>>>All those liberals want is to have health care for everyone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Everyone has health care. You pay for yours, I pay for mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And those who can't pay do what? Especially the children.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't understand why Republicans are so scared of universal health care. The health system remains the same, but you just have a single insurer (the government) which picks up the tab for only a tiny minority of the poorest of the poor. Everyone gets a better deal since their is no big slice of profit taken out of the pie. The insurer can also negotiate huge national purchases of drugs as a discount.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Profits lead to research & development, which leads to new technological advancements and discovery, which leads to cures. The profit motive has expidited the medical advancements that we've seen in the past few decades. In short, profits are good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fundamentally, I am for less government power and more individual power.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would agree with you except that not all people really are created equal. I am one of those bleeding hearts who feel that the civility of a society is measured by how it treats its weakest members. Some people are smarter than others, some are more talented etc. Not everyone can make their way in a dog-eat-dog society as well as others can, if at all. If it's not the government's job to look after those people, then whose?
>>>>
>>>>If you are referring to victims of a terrible tragedy then I agree that they should be helped. I feel it should be more locally oriented. There are many organizations dedicated to helping the less fortunate.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why should there be such a thing as charitable organisations? Why should I give my money to the government and then have to turn around and fund charitable organisations too? Part of the reason I give money to the government (apart from not wanting to go to jail) is so that it can help the less fortunate. And yes, I do give money to charities, but only because the government refuses to do what I feel is its job.
>>
>>This is our fundamental difference. You believe it's the government's job to take care of people, while I believe people should take care of themselves. I give money to charieies I believe help various people and causes I support and I do my best to make sure the government takes as little of my money as possible.
>
>Yes, a very fundamental difference. I don't feel there should be a need for individuals to have to start-up and run food banks etc. To me that should be the job of the society as a whole, and the representatives of that society as a whole are what makes up government.

I don't feel there should be a need for a federal government program to have to pay for food, healthcare, shelter, etc. To me that should be the responsibility of the individual. In the extreme cases where the individual is unable, not merely unwilling, local charities will take up the cause. If you want to see it happen, remove welfare, food stamps, HUD, etc and give a 90% tax break to local charitable contributions which provide those services. Then you'll see what an efficient program looks like.

>
>>>>As for those who can't hack the 'dog-eat-dog' society. I feel zero sympathy. Make better choices in life. The world is full of 'challenged' individuals, be they mental, physical or sociological, who have had great success in their life. It is not luck, it is a matter of will and desire. If you can't hack it then maybe natural selection should run it's course.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>One at a time...
>>
>>>I take it you also disagree with
>>>minimum wage laws,
>>
>>Yes, they hurt rather than help wages.
>
>I don't see that, but maybe if you explain how?
>

There are a number of economic factors involved but the long-term basics go like this. Most minimum-wage jobs are considered entry-level and more suited for teenagers first entering the work force. A rise in the minimum wage means more money and more desire to pursue that job rather then moving towards further education (college, trade, etc). Over the long-term this results in a less-skilled labor force relying on jobs that pay significantly less than then the jobs they could've pursued through further education.

A quick google search of "minimum wage costs" will produce more than enough information on both sides of the issue. This wiki also provides a good jumping off point. The arguements on the pro-minimum wage side just don't bear out the long term effects shown in the studies following minimum wage hikes.

I don't mean to imply that this is my only reason for opposing the minimum wage. I also oppose it because I believe it takes negociating power away from individuals who out-perform their fellow employees.

>>>health and safety laws,
>>
>>That's a big blanket you're trying to cover me with. I'm not against rational health and safety laws, but I hate heavy-handed laws. For instance helmet laws, either for children on bikes or adults on motercycles, strikes of nanny-state government.
>
>To some extent, we agree, but I think we have another fundamental disagreement. If parents refuse to look out for the welfare of their children, then I think the government must step in and do so. Children are not yet of an age to responsibly make those decisions for themselves. Or are you saying, if the parents won't look after their children, then tough?

This will be harsh but here goes. Children get hurt. Children die. It's a part of life and life is not fair. I do not believe it is the role of the government to be the populace's baby sitter. It's an incremental mess that is happening in regards to the nanny-state and it always seems to be done to protect 'the children'.

Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans, safe-and-sane fireworks...
Now were rushing towards trans-fat bans, no cell phones in cars, fast food taxes...The box is open and dumping it's restrictions all over the general populace and there is very little chance of ever putting it back.

>>>etc, being dumped on the poor corporations who are being hindered from making ever greater profits by this government interference?
>>
>>HAACP is an example of the good, mandating gun-locks are an example of the bad.
>
>See my previous post. Gun locks aren't mandated just for the protection of the gun owner. If the gun owner refuses to be responsible, the government must do something about it. I suppose you could say if a child kills himself or a friend, that the gun owner must take responsibility, but it seems to me that it's just a bit late at that point.

See above response.
Whenever I hear someone talk about protecting 'the children', I know another freedom is about to be flushed away.

"Won't somebody please think about the children?" -Helen Lovejoy The Simpsons

>>>Aren't you also one of the people down on illegal immigration?
>>
>>Illegal - yes. It's against the law. I have no problem with loosening the restrictions on legal immigration to allow more people access to the opportunities that America offers. I do want them to be screened and show a desire to become a part of this nation rather than just a body in the system.
>>
>>>Isn't it only illegal due to government regulations?
>>
>>SET SARCASM ON
>>Murder is only illegal due to government regulations.
>>SET SARCASM OFF
>
>Ok, I get sarcasm, but it's a really poor analogy.
>

It was simply a change of wording to prove a point. My analogy is below, which you completely side-stepped.

>>Is it ok for someone to break into your house, eat your food, sleep on your bed and then demand you pay for their children's schooling and healthcare,
>>and when you throw them out, they come back and repeat the process?
>
>Hey, I'm not the one who says the government shouldn't be involved.

Actually if you read my posts, you'll find that I believe security is the #1 job of the federal government. Security including military, police, firefighters, border agents, intelligence agents, etc...

>I thought you believed in dog-eat-dog. If the government simply threw open the gates, you'd have your dog-eat-dog society in a major way. How could that then be bad?

We pretty much have that now. Not-legally mind you.

>>>Wouldn't companies be even more profitable if immigration was thrown open to just anybody, and let those who can survive do so, and the hell with the rest?
>
>>Ever heard of globalization? Companies are becoming more profitable by outsourcing. The apparent secret, at least on this forum, is that better jobs and saleries are now available in the US because of it. Shhhh, don't let that cat out of the bag though, it's taboo here.
>
>Again, you need to point me to some explanation for that conclusion. It's another thing that is counter-intuitive for me.

Transferring low-wage jobs oversees creates more capital for the companies engaging in the practice. That capital is now free to pursue further investment in the company. This investment will result in higher paying jobs. There are studies showing that shipping software and IT services work abroad leads to higher real wages for U.S. workers through lower inflation and higher productivity.

>>>>>One thing about the profit motive, it also is what creates orphan diseases. The pharmaceutical companies don't want to do research in areas that won't return large profits, so if the government doesn't get involved, then who? Even then, it's just more money for pharma. The government has to pay them to do the research into those orphan diseases. When the government stops funding them, more people die.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not following you. Huge advancements are made in major diseases but because the smaller ones don't get the attention it is the pharma's fault? Why? Aren't there charitable organizations that contribute and universities still doing research? Pharma doesn't create the problem, nature does.
>>>
>>>At no point did I say it's pharma's fault. It is the fault of the process. If profit is the driver for everything, then these things will fall by the wayside. I fell it should be the government's job to see that this doesn't happen.
>>
>>That's a BIG box you're opening Pandora. How many diseases exist? How many will exist tomorrow or the next day? You want the government to supply the research money for everything? If not, who decides what takes precedence?
>
>Of course there needs to be triage, but that triage should not be solely dependent on where the pharmaceutical company sees the greatest profit.

I'd rather leave that up to the individual companies to decide rather than a government buracracy. If we apply my charity tax break, I'm sure that a medical research charity would be included and they could decide where the money goes.

>>>See above re charitable institutions. Besides, why should anybody set up a charitable institution? Shouldn't they instead be out hustling for a buck and trying to eat all the other dogs?
>>
>>Are you implying you can't do both? See Bill Gates.
>
>Unfortunately, I'm not Bill Gates. And yes, as I said, I do both. I just feel that I should not be expected to do both. I believe the government needs to take some of the onus for seeing that all members of society have the same access to necessary services regardless of the size of their bank accounts. I see health care as a necessary service - no less than the services offered by the fire department or the police department. Or perhaps you think those too should be run like charities rather than by the government?

Regarding fire/police see above.

Regarding health care, no I do not see it as something the government should provide. I regard the health care industry the same as any other. The government should enforce existing laws (no monopolies, no price gouging/market manipulation), keep the regulations to a minimum (no windfall taxes, loosen FDA restrictions) and let the free-market happen.