- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
So you want to redistribute wealth from a richer country to a poorer country? You do not want to redistribute a country's wealth among the poor individuals of that country?
I'd like to see the divide between the wealthy and poor severely reduced, which ultimately means doing that, or imposing strict tariffs upon businesses in order to keep jobs in our own nations as opposed to exploiting the poor people in those nations as a cheap labor source.
Not only that but they have been trying to institute single player as well.
I think you messed up this sentence. I don't understand it.
Yet, they seem not to grasp that technologically health care has improved because of market based principles.
Market-based principles work in favour of profit, meaning a focus on medicine for the most profitable diseases (rare diseases aren't researched) and conditions, as well as performing treatments rather than cures, because a cure ends the demand from the consumer for service.
Of course, if you want to see some real market-based results in medicine, look at the 19th century where money was made selling patent medicines instead of actually finding cures for disease. Gotta love the entrepreneurial mindset there, why make a cure when we can just mix some herbs with grain alcohol and sell that?
Health care will not improve with socialized care unless you prefer ration care.
Of course, you never lived in countries with socialised medicine, so what would you know?
Actually, everyone has the opportunity to accumulate wealth.
Wealth acquisition is a positive feedback mechanism. The more wealth you have, the easier it is to acquire more of it. Therefore there can never be an equal opportunity to acquire wealth, because nature favors those who are already well moneyed over those who are not. Then if you add the social aspect of it, the working class is the least capable of securing wealth for itself because it has the least amount of per-person wealth, which translates into political power.
The fact that the number of people who would rather get a handout outnumber those who actually work for it does not mean that only a few are given the opportunity to advance themselves. Everyone is given the same opportunity.
If you are working class, then it means that in the last thirty years your income bracket has lost around seven percent of its total private wealth to the hands of the richest one percent of the American population. This means that far from the image of the wealthy going broke supporting social programs, the wealthiest one percent of our nation have increased their personal wealth from thirty-five percent of all private wealth in the country to forty-two percent. The middle class has stayed relatively stagnant.
In other words, the wealthy plunder the livelihoods of the working class, and put a lot of money and resources into politics which support their ability to keep this wealth. Now eighty-five percent of the population has a mere fifteen percent of the nation's private wealth at their disposal. When trying to fight against forty-two percent of the nation's private wealth focused in the hands of a much smaller population, there is no chance for equality.
There is no equal opportunity here, just the mirage of it.
Also, wealth redistribution does NOT magically create a socially healthy society .
I never said it does. It depends on how you distribute the wealth. By the way, capitalism is a form of wealth redistribution. It doesn't create wealth out of thin air, but distributes wealth in a way that prioritises selfishness and greed. You just know that that cannot be good for a healthy society, and we see it now as the United States and Europe are full of wealthy, well-fed people to contrast the utter poor in the developing nations who sell goods to us and act as cheap labour.
Admittedly, I don't like the idea of being forced to buy into health insurance, mostly because I am exceptionally healthy. I also greatly recognize the importance of public education, and would never dream of cutting funding to it (or ending it all together). I really don't like the idea of private schools, because they give the rich greater educational opportunities.
I don't either, but I see it as a rational cost for the system, just like public schools too.
I'm particularly worried about private education because it also is not bound by our laws on secularism, meaning that private schools can choose to be legal indoctrination camps for whatever religion happens to be popular at the time.
You might have seen my rant on the numerous flaws of the "Free Market" in the discussion with PRAYERFAILS. If only I could discover some better system, I might have to dedicate my education and specialized knowledge to propose of such a system.
Yes, I just read that. You know you cannot make prayerfails admit a flaw in the free market, because in his mind (like apparently most full-blooded libertarians) the only way the market fails is if it doesn't accumulate wealth in the hands of the few. His premise on it working isn't based on it creating a socially healthy society and he is the first one to proudly announce this selfishness.
If government can force people to buy insurance, why stop there? This is a slippery slope. Maybe, you should lobby to force people buy to consume vegetables, fruits, blue cars built by Government Motors and pink toilet seats.
Next thing you know we'll be forced to pay for public education, government housing projects, NASA, roads, water, forestry service and parks, the food and drug administration, scientific research, welfare, unemployment, state hospitals and military.
Actually, these are applied to the constitution under the taxing and spending clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 whereas buying insurance is being debated under the Commerce Clause.
In other words, these are all major institutions which we happen to be used to. The health care act is new, and big, so let's find some special law to try and take it down.
Public schools, roads, water and welfare are simply taxation whereas forcing people to buy a good is not, that is regulating commerce. GET IT STRAIGHT!!!
Your taxes pay for a good. Paying taxes for public school, for example, provides that good to other people and yourself. You are being forced to pay for a good that you may or may not be using on yourself. The only difference is that one is mediated through taxes and the other is a direct purchase that you must make.
You quoted a District Judge and then attacked Conservative Pundits.
Yes. Do you have trouble following more than one subject in a paragraph? What's the problem?
It just seems like a REALLY bad way to support your argument. It just makes you sound like a.... Liberal.
No. It's called using complex language. Do you have a substantive objection?
I don't watch or read Conservative News. I used to watch all the Cable News Programs all the time, but I pretty much stopped at the end of 2008.
Well, if you want a condensed version of what I am talking about, look at this:
It looks like every wealthy interest group has used information (mass media and the ears of politicians) to have the bill killed. This really upsets businesses because it mandates that large ones provide healthcare. It upsets insurance providers because they cannot exclude you due to preexisting conditions. It angers the religious right because it provides a woman's legal right to abortion. It angers the libertarians because they want zero regulations on the healthcare industry (seriously).
So we see pundits spreading misinformation, fear, worry, and alarm.
Lately it's been blogs, Reason, and just news off of the internet (Wikipedia, Google, and recent studies are my favs). I don't care that much about punditry and such. They never effected my opinions; information did.
It may behoove you to take a look at what they say, just so that you know what's circulating in public opinion if you decide to have a political discussion. Otherwise you'll be taken aback from the sudden sheer stupidity.
And I'm more angry at this shitty Bill that was released. It was broad enough to NOT stop Insurance companies from eliminating coverage in order to not go bankrupt (I mean, going bankrupt would suck for everyone, but it sucks that people who payed for their insurance are now losing it just because government doesn't understand what the real world is like).
As I said before: the bill would have been better, but it had enough trouble getting passed as it is. We have too many businesses, corporations, and churches who have effectively bought out our government legislators with campaign donations, lobbyists, and social connections.
It just sucks that so many people have lost coverage for certain things just because the government doesn't know how to properly write a Bill. They didn't think that insurance companies would stop coverage for children and diseases that can be pre-existing just because the government makes it way to risky and expensive to maintain? pfft.
The reason the healthcare bill is imperfect is that there are so many vested interests in our government. Insurance is big business, and big corporations do not want to be mandated to provide their employees with healthcare. We were lucky to get anything at all.
You mean US District Court Judges... they're not pundits.
No, I mean conservative pundits. Do you not watch or read the conservative news? Every slimy, dishonest tactic has been tried to kill the Health bill, from accusing it of being socialism, to spreading a lie about death panels, to blowing the costs out of proportion, to calling it a rationing of care, to obstructing its passage in the senate even though a majority approved it, to now trying to find it unconstitutional using a very broad and weak legal argument.
I'm surprised you're not angry. You told me that you dislike broad laws. Well, that's what the judge used here. Such a broad understanding of our constitution that he may as well rule public schools illegal.
Late Monday afternoon in Pensacola, Fla., U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson delivered the second major judgment that the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the "individual mandate" that forces Americans to buy health insurance whether or not they want it—is unconstitutional.
Has bothered me for a while because if he is going to argue that it is unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance, that same type of reasoning must apply towards every other social institution. In other words, suddenly our public schools, roads, water, welfare, etc. become unconstitutional because they force people to buy into these services even if they do not use them.
Congratulations conservative pundits for finding any excuse to not let the issue rest. No matter what can of worms is opened by your pushing, all because you have insurance interests weighing on you to kill a bill for them.