JustinW

waitforufo, This could be stretched to encompass nearly every thing we do in life. Where it would end and when the line would be drawn would only depend on how far the public would be willing to be pushed. It seems like those who have a relaxed view on freedom are inviting the government to become tyrannical over a submissive populace in the name of "their own good". Zapatos, So what? You are still free to break the law. The law is implemented as an incintive not to do something(prevent) because you could go to jail(punishment) if you do. So while I agree with you about what a law does, it in no way falsifies my origional assertion.

Villain, Everyone already has 100% freedom as far as their actions are conscerned. You have the freedom to kill, just like anyone else. No one can take that away from you unless they lock you in a cell to prevent it. Laws are not created to take away those freedoms, but rather provide consequences as incentive not to excersize those freedoms. And "freedom to not be murdered" doesn't make any sense. Sgt. Billko, It's funny, but for some reason slavery popped into my head when I read this sentence. Slaves can't do what they want, or even what they think is right, they contribute to civilization, and at one point slavery was the norm of that civilization. I know you weren't meaning it that way, but since it popped into my head, and once applied seemed to fit, I thought I would write it down.

Shouldn't the person that called 911 know who? I assumed that the witness was present at the time of the scuffle right before the shooting occured.

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the pros and cons of other systems for a hypothetical replacement of the US model?

John, Because the question doesn't fit with what I said.You said " all laws would be an attack on freedom as you put it", when that is no where close to being how I put it. So the answer to your question is an obvious no and has no bearing on the conversation. Yes, that laws are restrictive is a fact, but they still don't make you buy certain products. I find it amazing that you think that's right. Because we don't have a government that is able to supress the costs like other countries do. I've already explained my reasoning on these, but you refused to tell me how it was wrong. You just keep repeating it and saying that it's evidence that the US' quality is worse. I've already explained this also.

Vent, You're going to have to explain a little better so can know what you're referring to. Captain, I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. Not policies during times of war dealing with the trial of citezens on foreign soil. And I've never said this. And I never said this. I said that I have a different opinion on human rights, and I only said so to avoid an argument that would be off topic. What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position? Correct me if I'm wrong, but were we talking about slavery? Are we enslaving people now? I must have missed the memo. No we saved their asses in WW2, like we're trying to do now in the middle east. Is that such an absurd way to characterize things?

John, In private insurance a person has the option to switch to another provider that does fit their needs. With a government provided system there is no option. And to stay in the context of this thread, this is another reason I would prefer the Swiss system. Because it provides more option and availability.

John, And all of this stems from the fact that I was saying a law doesn't make you buy a service or product. Just because you want to take a part of the conversation and twist it doesn't mean I will play along. What you said. Post 147 My reply. Post 151 Your reply. Post 154 Do you see how you have twisted my response that "a law doesn't require you to buy a product", into " laws don't take freedom away"? I didn't mean that they had to fly around the world. Go to the next town over, or even the next if that is what it takes. And you think it is the government's responsibility to demand that these people do so? This is where my ideology kicks in. You may not like it, but I don't really like the idea of government mandating someone to do something just because they can. It's almost laughable. In this post I said I could see your point that people deciding not to work was different than people not being able to. In this post I said that no one knows why the infant mortality rate is higher among African Americans. If someone wanted to prove that that argument was out of incredulity, then I challenge them to prove that someone knows the reason. So my position stands on that matter. They do and no one knows why. If you think that's wrong then prove otherwise. Just because someone says it's out of incredulity doesn't make it so. Zapatos, Once explained that way, I can see where I erred. I do apologize. You might find that some of reply was mentioned in a reply to A Trip, about taxation above in post 155. I think it is wrong to directly mandate that someone pay on behalf of someone else just because they've made better choices with their lives. If they want to do so on their own that is one thing. But to have a government mandate that requires them to do so is something completely different.

Do you deny that governments ration care to cut costs in those types of systems? Why do you think they do so? To control costs of course. I could look up a bunch of links to support this, but as some people say, it's painfully obvious.(pun intended) Quick definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_rationing

Bilko, What's the matter seargent? Skeerd? Phi, Although I don't like to see anything cut into an individuals business for alot of reasons, I can understand some of your points where corporations are conscerned. Working for the better of the few, I might have a slightly different opinion on. The ones who build a company should reep the benifits of that company. With that being said, there are some stipulations I would add such as not mixing in the political field to further their own gains. It seems to me that that falls under the same principle as insider trading. Exactly.

Maybe they are to some point, but not at the same level as the more wealthy nations. Most publicly funded systems try to control costs and that has to have effects in availability of expensive medicines, equipment, and resources.

ydoaPs, Neither do unions. The last presidential election had alot of support from unions. Do you think that each and every employee under that union got a vote? Phi, Did they ever eally serve the people well. I know the thought of a union is to serve the people, but can you think of one that didn't serve a fat cat better? Yeah, I don't mind their campaigning. But I would prefer if the message came straight from the candidate and not those who pool their resources to give that candidate a voice that may not be genuine. Sounds fair enough I guess, but even the trashing of an opponent can be achieved on the debate stage.

Zapatos, If you're going to quote yourself, why don't you actually quote the full content of what you saidWhat you said. And I believe this rant was more or less thrown in my direction also. I do have the balls to question my own country. My country is trying to do something that I am questioning as wrong. Is this not accurate? Explain WHERE. For christ sake I only get these vague comments about me being wrong, when I'm asking as much as I can for people to tell me where and more importantly how. You would think on a forum that prides itself in logical thought that it wouldn't be this damn hard to accomplish. People give me graphs. I tell them how either that information doesn't apply to the argument or why that information is inaccurate, and they come back and say "you're wrong" without explaining how or why. How the hell am I supposed to argue with that? If you were reading the thread you would have already read where I covered our cost issue. Although between John and me, we may have confused the issue a little. I'll try to keep the issue short. Basicly you have to expect that a free market with our amount of economic output will automatically spend more than a country that is able to supress their spending through the regulation of medicine and procedures.If you find issue with this assessment then please explain how or why. A Trip, Me too, off and on for the most part. The only time I was ever insured was when my parents manipulated the system to get something free. I grew up with these sorts of fraudulant acts and I know full well how easy the system is to manipulate. I was less fortunate on a few occasions, but we always found a way. The best thing about growing up poor is that you fully understand what it takes to survive in some situations. People may look at my ideology as harsh or insensitive, but I've learned to never ask from others what you are not willing to do yourself. Is this tax you propose the same amount for everybody? Or will it be based on income? If you are going to make the rich pay more for the same product where does that seem fair. It seems more like punishment for being rich by carrying the burdens of others on their backs just because they made good choices in their lives. And if it wasn't that way then that tax wouldn't be as affordable to you anymore, would it? John, Taken in that context you are correct, but I think you know what I meant. It's hard to argue with you sometimes because you have a strange way of going about it. Like this Does every person not possess the power to work towards their future? If not, what restricts them? I'll tell you now that anything you put down, barring medical reasons, can be disputed. No. You just say that it's wrong. You never say how.

Jumped right on that one didn't you Phi? To me a government's involvement needs to remain minimal as much as controling the individual person is conscerned. Laws that protect a person against direct harm from another and that sort of thing is understandable. But we definitely don't need to open the door in allowing them to use taxation as a punishment for behavior. No matter how you justify it, that would be wrong and detrimental to freedom

If you want a crazy right-wing nut job's point of view on this I'll keep it short. You're right. Corporations shouldn't enjoy the rights of an individual person for the simple fact that they could be going against what the majority of their employees agree with. I have had this same argument about unions. So it seems that if we allow unions to do this, we would also have to allow corporations the same benifit. I personally don't think that anyone should be helping candidates accept for their own campaign committees. It seems that if they can't get elected on their own thoughts and actions that they shouldn't be running in the first place.

iNow, Okay, the Swiss might spend more than most, but they are still privvy to all the advancements in technology and latest innovations. I think for the minimal restraint on choices that they and their doctors are allowed to make, the cost is worth it considering their economic output and availability. So, please refrain from preempting my responses since I have already agreed to look at this thread with a certain amount of objectivity. Also I would be happy to debate freedom with you. Just say the word.

John, No there are not. A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product. Alright, I can see your point on that one. I just wanted you to see the flip side of your comment. So it is that they simply can't find work? Or is it alright to assert that they are not looking hard enough? Most people can find work somewhere. Whether they have to go abroad to do so, or step up the level of initiative, enginuity, or willingness to work under their level of qualifications, I cannot believe that the majority of those people cannot find some type of work somewhere. A Trip, I missread when you said this in post 129. For some reason, in my mind I thought you said acting like a college kid. I will try and pay more attention to the text from now on. Sure here you go. http://www.sasid.com/our-product/core-health-insurance-limited-indemnity-medical-insurance/It's not the best in the world, like a major medical plan would be, but it does the trick till something better comes along and you get to a more sound financial state. And have you made any choices that would have allowed you to afford some sort of plan. Or did you make a decision that put you in the spot you are in? iNow, Do you see the vagueness of this statement. You have given me nothing but vague accusations of where I'm wrong without telling me WHAT is so wrong about it.

iNow, Yep. And price doesn't conscern me as much as a surpression of cost with the regulating of procedures and medicines that are allowed to be used.I am under the assumption that the major factor of this thread is to talk about systems that coverage encompasses everyone?

iNow, I don't know... I think I would be more in favor of setting up a task force to purge medicaid of the fraudulant people who abuse it, see how much that opens that program up for growth, and spread it's coverage accordingly. A Trip, Well it does seem like your day is pretty full. By the way you said that you were acting like a college kid seemed to imply that you were only acting, not doing, and I wondered if it was only by choice. Hmmm, that's funny, I found one for my wife for $134 a month last quarter. What's so skewed about it. Can you cite anywhere that I have presented an argument that wasn't valid? Reply for posts 143-145 Hahaha...It's amazing how well you fellas can pat eachother on the back and poke fun at someone for disagreeing, but can't tell me EXACTLY where I'm wrong. All you can do is cheerlead for your cause or do like Zapatos and call me "less than a man". Which is alright, because someone like Zapatos, who talks fightin' words while hiding behind a computer screen really isn't much of a man in my opinion either. That being said I would still like to hear where my logic doesn't apply and how. (and don't forget the how, that's the part I been wanting, but have yet to recieve with any detail)

Zapatos, So this is what you've resorted to? Calling me less than a man? Oh, if only...If I didn't like critical discussion so much I might have some choice words. By mandating that you buy something is an attack on your freedom. Some may argue that they mandate that you buy auto insurance, but they don't. Only if you choose to drive. Mandating that you buy something because you choose to live is an attack on freedom.

iNow, Okay, I'll play along. Assuming that we were going to replace the US system for another countries model I wouldn't like to model any ONE country. I think that would be asking for the same troubles already implied by the OP in various different countries. But that being said, instead of nit-picking through the pros and cons of each individual countries healthcare system, I would probably choose the Swiss' system. If only we could get over the fact that people think a wealthier nation shouldn't spend more on their healthcare than less wealthier nations. I think this article covers most of why I would find it appealing in this scenario. http://www.forbes.co...th-care-system/ Sorry, cross posted with John5746

If you'll pardon the seeming idiocracy of this, I have a couple of questions. MigL, How do we know that it cannot be bounded? If the BB origionated from a single point, and in that point was "all there is", then there would be no "outside", right? That would be assuming that there is an outside of "all there is", which in my mind would be just as speculative as anything. And I've seen moderators crack down on speculative remarks in this thread. Considering the OP, "What was before the Big Bang", how could this thread be anything but speculative? It seems to me that a person's metaphysical or philosophical logical would fit right in with any other theory on the subject.

I guess this excludes me?

iNow, And I don't appreciate the sarcastic "USA, USA, USA" comments either. And no it's not because you disagree with me, it's because of comments like I've bolded. And there are two reasons that I find faulty with your justification. First, you have had this type of negative attitude, championing different parts of the world, on numerous subjects, not just in this context. And second, when your "facts" can be shown not to apply to the context of an argument you still assert that they are usefull. I wasn't focusing too much on the examples, John asked I answered, but that's beside the point. With the sheer numbers, and I haven't even included Hispanics in this, along with the difference in reporting criteria, how could it not come close to making up the difference between countries? I still haven't been fully let in on your reasoning for this.

Captain, I guess I can see your point. It's not the same. Not to mention my interpretation of human rights are not taken well by some people, as I see human rights as only that which is percieved as a right to the one who holds the most power. And I know that some see human rights as inalienable and God given(for lack of a better term), and not as something that is given by another human. Hence the one who holds the power to give such a right. But I think that is a little off topic. Aside from a different interpretation of human rights, I do believe he authorized violence against anyone who are percieved as a threat to the US or it's citizens. Captain, So? Is it not in our best interest to do so? Were we not the ones who took the most risk in these exchanges? From a business standpoint would it be viable to walk away from something that could benifit you in the long run? John, And how many rockets/mortars over the past decade?