medicineman
New Member
Gimmie your # I might need you. ~LOL~
Liberals; Fair and Balanced ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
Good call, he's helping himself to a good sized commission, that's a given. I don't think VI ever does anything for nothing.
ViRedd
New Member
ViRedd
New Member
Can you give some examples??? Please list my arguments that don't make sense, then tell me/us what your solutions are that DO make sense. Thanks ...
Vi
medicineman
New Member
There you go again. Be specific! Maybe you just don't make sense in a general way. That seems to be my appraisel of your ramblings. In general you come at life with a misconstrued belief that everyone should think as you do, and from your perspective, anyone that doesn't is skewed and doesn't deserve an opinion. If they don't follow your example, they must be communists or at least communist sympathizers. There is your way or the highway. To coin a phrase, Bolloks. You would privitize everything with the misconstrued conception that the private charities would take up the slack with the less fortunate when in essence you are saying, leave my money alone, I made it, let me spend it on myself and live a luxurious lifestyle while those with nothing can starve. Please tell me where I am wrong here. IE, it's good to be King.
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
The only thing wrong with your argument Med, is that somebody has already tried letting their government control things like that. They called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You know the U.S.S.R., the Soviet Union, Communism at its finest. And guess what, that has failed miserably. Why, because 9 times out of 10 you will find crooks who will put more money into the pockets of the people running the governments (themselves) and that would leave little for the rest of the people.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
before the government took it upon itself to take our money and absorb most of it along the way to being given to the "less fortunate", private charity helped a lot of people make a better life.
i just can't understand how so many people seem to think the government gives a damn. the same people who would otherwise work in private enterprise are employed by the government, only difference is they can't get fired, they get automatic raises despite performance, and they aren't held to account.
i guess they magically transform into self-sacrificing champions of public service once they get in the system? it's good to be cynical of the private sector but the fed is an unblemished beacon of hope...
.
i just can't understand how so many people seem to think the government gives a damn. the same people who would otherwise work in private enterprise are employed by the government, only difference is they can't get fired, they get automatic raises despite performance, and they aren't held to account.
i guess they magically transform into self-sacrificing champions of public service once they get in the system? it's good to be cynical of the private sector but the fed is an unblemished beacon of hope...
.
medicineman
New Member
................. I'm pretty sure you could impose corporations for governments in the above statement
Do you actually believe the privatization of American corporations, IE no government oversight, would improve the United States for the average American citizen. Do you actually believe that individual charities would take on the burden of the poor. Do you actually believe that the medical institutions would provide free care to indigent people. If so you are dillusional. The corporations have proven time and time again they care not for people, but only for profit, There are not enough charities to go around, and people don't want a hand out, they want a hand up. The medical institution has proven they are more interested in profit than people, why would a Dr want to see a poor person that could not afford to pay much (Medicare) if it was not mandated. There is a place for government in the society. It should administer to the people, not the corporations, I'm for letting private enterprise make a profit, but also holding them responsible for ethical and Moral treatment of those less advantaged, and not just improving their bottom lines. I believe in a democracy, the people should come first, remember, "of the people, for the people, by the people."
7xstall
Well-Known Member
i personally knew a Dr. who refused medicare, not the patients, just the process. if they didn't have the money it was free.
he worked like this day in and day out until just a few days before cancer killed him.
the government didn't tell him to do that, his conscience did.
we should want to inspire this kind of thing in society. instead, we seek out ways to abolish it and place it in the hands of our government keepers.
.
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
My wife is a doctor at a hospital around Georgetown, D.C., Virginia area. And if somebody comes into the emergency room without insurance, the doctors will see them. She tells me that the doctor has to treat the patient in front of them, regardless if they have insurance. Look back at history. When John Wilkes Booth shot and killed Lincoln and jumped from the balcony he broke his leg. There was a doctor whotreated him and set his leg. That doctor was tried, sentenced and convicted for treating him. And there is no mandate for a doctors office to accept medicare. They either do, or they don't. I know several doctors offices that won't take Medicare at all. Either private insurance or cash, but no Medicare at all. I remember a program created by the Federal Government that was suppose to be a hand up to people and not a hand out, they call it Welfare. But that is actually a system of hand outs and not hand ups. President Clinton tried something he called "Welfare to Work". If you can remember that program failed because Democrats in the Senate and House of Reps couldn't get this mentality of "You Can't Work On Welfare" out of their heads. And you are forgetting something, the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" that you want to quote so much comes from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address speech. It doesn't come from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence either one. Look at how the President is elected in the Constitution, Jefferson didn't want to leave it up to "by the people". Because the people could be forced to vote for something regardless of whether they wanted it or not. So the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution wasn't concerned with "of the people, by the people or for the people". This would also apply to any and all candidates who want to go back to the Constitution is the only way to do things.
medicineman
New Member
And there you go one Dr. There are probably a lot of good dr.s, in fact most of them are for universal health care, A Dr. can always have a private practice outside his health clinic rules. I had a Dr. that I idolized, but in the end, he threw us MHO patients to the wolves and initiated a 3,000 per person minimum Per year fee to be able to see him + you had to pay for Dr. visits, sort of a MD club for the rich. I have my animosities with the rich. Having never been there done that I find it vexing to say the least. I guess there must be some jealousy as I know life is generally easier if you don't have any money worries and you can basically do what you want. You can live above the fray so to speak. I am a simple person, a cool million would do me fine. I don't seek fame and am too lazy to get fortune (impossible from my entry point anyway) so I must say, I'll never know the trials of a rich man. Maybe if I were rich and could live above the law and made millions from the Bush regimes war or policies, I'd have a different take on politics, although I don't see the advantage of a dictatorship. The dictator could always get pissed at you.
ViRedd
New Member
SOME jealousy? Med, in almost every post, you exude jealousy. You have jealousy coming out of your freakin' pores. Over the past year and a half, or so, you've espoused the ruination of the rich ... the rich being anyone who has attained in life more than you have. You continually bash the corporations, but think nothing of collecting your union pension without a thought that the money you are collecting was invested in mutual funds and the stock market. In other words, your living is partially derived from those very corporations that you hate so much. I've known plenty of VERY rich people in my lifetime. Some are clients of mine. You have no freaking clue of the pressures these people endure on a daily basis. You have no clue about the huge responsibilities they have assumed. You sit there and just whine about "the rich" getting too much of your pie, and have no clue about wealth creation and the fact that "the pie" is not finite, but is infinite and ever expanding. You have no clue that government is nothing but power ... and not there to help you. Your idea of good government is a government that punishes achievement and stifles incentive. And yes, I've called you a communist. Why? Because in the past I've directed you the the U.S. Communist Party web site so you can see where your ideas come from ... and you've admitted that you agree with everything on their site. So, what would you call your political views if not communistic in nature??
Vi
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
Acutally I was going to say he was more socialist than communist. But they are basically the same things.
I dont know, after reading this thread I think Med has some valid points, corporations do have to be more responsible for what they do and produce, also they need to pay more taxes since they benifit more than anyone else to be located in US and enjoy the protection of our military and the use of our infrastructure...
ViRedd
New Member
Dankster ...
I do indeed know the difference between communism and socialism. Socialism is communism-lite. You can dress a pig in a tutu Dank, but it won't be a ballet dancer no matter what you do.
Vi