The existence of the NRA is quite a bit more complex than that, and if you want a true 2nd Amendment group, look up the JPFO or GOA, not the NRA. But regardless, unlike the ACLU, they don't pretend to defend the entire Bill of Rights. Ultimately, it's the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st, not the ACLU.
That's something most don't think of or realize, the Second amendment protects all the others. JPFO? I don't recall that one but I've heard of the Gun Owners Of America, GOA. I don't really know much about it though.
You do need referrals from that doctor to specialists, but it's almost always forthcoming. I've never been turned down, even when the doctor said "I don't think you need this, but..." So, you call or visit your GP and pick your specialist (or they'll suggest one) and off you go.
Thus driving up the costs of healthcare. I bet if you had to pay for healthcare out of pocket you wouldn't be so eager to see specialists.
I've similarly been able to get blood tests and such that we're "strictly necessary" just by saying that I was just afraid of getting Diabetes, etc.
As far as I'm concerned docs should order blood tests and maybe urinalysis at every visit, and the last doc I was seeing did that.
You see it as a system of very strict rationing. Personally, I see it as a land of plenty. It's so easy to see a doctor. One of our homeless could walk into one of the better clinics and get an appointment in an hour. They could go to a hospital and get treated immediately.
Thus driving up costs again. Sure people should be able to easily see a doc, however when someone else is paying for it, like a lot of other freebies, people will get as much as they can thus driving up costs. I bet if you had to pay out of pocket you wouldn't be so flippant about seeing a doc on a whim. As for hospitals, in the US even the homeless can go to the hospital. Unfortunately it frequently happens only when it's an emergency, which drives up costs. Better would be to allow walkin clinics on the street corner. However government has made this economically unfeasible with all the licensing and regulations, well off areas can afford it but not in poor areas.
That means I don't need to worry about a junkie stealing to afford a doctor. I don't need to worry about a Typhoid Mary wandering the streets. I don't need to worry that I lost my ID in an accident and won't get expensive treatment until they find it.
I didn't need one either when I had an accident. See, I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. Though I didn't have insurance I was airlifted to a hospital where I was admitted and treated. Though there was no guaranty any of them would ever get paid the hospital still admitted me and the docs treated me. My hospital stay cost more than $120,000, yet I got all that help without insurance.
Sure, if I get a weird brain cancer, I might have a better chance in the USA with my $20Mil. Of course, I don't have $20M and far more people die of untreated trivial infections than rare cancers, but hey...
Easy to take care of. Reduce or eliminate licensing and regulations so walkin clinics can be opened on the street corner in a poor neighborhood. Right now only wealthy areas can afford it.
Whereas, when it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to certain people whom society dictated, and there was no "theory" about it they flat out said it did or didn't apply. Never was it written into the Constitution that neither women nor Africans would enjoy the same protections that white males did, but such was the case. And is still the case, just to a much lesser and less explicit extent, at least for those groups that spent literally hundreds of years fighting for their rights. Unfortunately some groups, based solely on the fact that they belong to the group or in some cases are even suspected of belonging, face grave repurcussions.
Actually Africans, both freemen and slaves owned firearms and both fought during the Revolutionary War or War of Independence. Some fought for America some for the British.
You mean like the Second Amendment? Oh yeah, that's right, they think it applies to state organized militias. You know, like the Federally funded, Federally equipped, Federally organized, and Federally controlled Nation Guard. Support the ACLU? No thanks, I'd rather support someone that doesn't cherry pick from the Bill of Rights.
What do you think the NRA did? they cherry picked the Second amendment. Of course that's the reason of their existence.
Also, it was the revised Patriot act, which was signed into law on March 9, 2006. I don't know if the offending provision was in the original act or not.
The case was filed before the act was revised. However offending parts were in the revised version as well.
They specifically attack the right to religious expression in schools and in public places.
The expression of religion in school, a public school, is not a right. As Thomas Jefferson said religion is a private matter and that's exactly where it should stay. Freedom from religion is as much a part of the First Amendment as is worship. Exhibits in public, not government, are another matter as long as it isn't paid for by taxpayer dollars. I have one simple question for those who support the display of Christian images and text such as the Ten Commandments in government building what they would think of having a display of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and the Wiccan Rede right next to it?
I think, there are bigger problems this country is experiencing than pictures on a wall, or a cartoon in a newspaper. But it seems at every turn the ACLU is cherry-picking the little ones, and not taking on the meaningful ones. With few, rare exceptions. That's why I would oppose any tax funding of the ACLU.
Also, Jesus wasn't a lawgiver, so your whole argument is bunk. Jesus was a law-breaker, who threw most of the Old Testaments rules out the window and replaced them with "love god" and "love thy neighbor." And those are wonderful philosophies, don't get me wrong, but they ain't exactly laws.
While I love those sentiments, well the neighbor part, to Christians they are the law. Laws they fail to follow frequently.
> If you mean that the NRA donates money to politicians,
That's exactly what I mean. Tax revenue sources don't tend to have much influence on federal policy. Campaign contributions have enormous influence.
The NRA is an example campaign contributions don't have much influence. If campaign contributions did have an effect people wouldn't needing to fight tooth and nail to keep their, our, right to bare arms.
Oh, don't worry. McCain is a closet fascist too; maybe worse than Guiliani. There was a whole article in Reason about it which I'm too lazy to link here.
In the run up to the 2000 election I supported McCain as the Republican candidate, but after reading the "Reason" article I was glad he lost.
OK, you guys can hack at this argument but, we could have been stuck with king ALGORE. That would have been far worse. Talk about crooked hypocrites!
In 2000 because the race was so close, instead of voting for whom I wanted to I specifically voted against Bush by checking off Gore. Gore was bad but Bush is much worse. These past 6 years have proven that.
I'm supporting Ron Paul until he drops from the race. He's the only candidate who I trust to say the truth. I may disagree with him in several ways but at least he will do what he says. The others will all lie to me and then do something else random. He's the only one who sticks to his principles.
While Ron Paul may make it through the Vermont and New Hampshire primaries I seriously doubt he'll make through the rest unfortunately. I voted from him in 1988 and would vote to vote for him in 2008.
During World War Two, firms were experiencing labor shortages. The normal way of fixing a labor shortage, raising wages, was impossible because of wartime price controls. So the government allowed Companies to give workers health care tax free in lieu of wage increases. This little quirk is why you don't see such a policy in any other nation in the world.
Oh really, no other country's employer offer health insurance? What's this then?
People who reside in Japan must join either their employer's health insurance scheme or National Health Insurance, which is managed by the city, town or village.
Yet this is still way too expensive for workers who are currently facing major reforms in China's medical insurance system that are far from perfect and unlikely to meet such costs. Moreover, migrant workers are generally not included in employer health insurance schemes;
Even in China employers offer health insurance for their employees, though not to all.
If a company chooses to pay with health insurance, and the worker agrees, then that is fine. But that is not why we see widespread employer provided health-care. Suppose that if instead of health-care, you were paid with money. You would then be taxed on this money, and you now have around 30% less money to spend on health care. But if you are given the health care directly through an employer, you are not taxed (because of WW2 era rules). Because of this, it makes overwhelming sense to buy your health care through your employer.
Ok, I can see why employers, those who can afford it, will offer insurance. However employees can still get insurance from employers cheaper than they can on their own. As for income tax and having to pay more if you get paid more by the employer, so you can get your own insurance, that's another matter. Personally I'd eliminate all personal earned income tax. Because corporations offer their owners, shareholder or stockholders, limited liability I'd require corporations to pay income tax. Problem solved.
What is wrong with this? First, companies usually negotiate a single HMO or insurance company for all of their employees in exchange for some kickbacks. So these employees are stuck with a single insurance, and if they don't like it, competing companies are at a 30% disadvantage. So employer related health insurance companies have quite a bit of wiggle room in terms of service and price before hand. There are exceptions, like Google and American Airlines, but in general, most companies act in such a way.
WOW! You've given me something to think about, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Combined with Medical Savings Accounts, one on a very short list of things Bush has proposed I like the other being to allow workers to privatize some of their social security, it could work. Of course if earned income weren't taxed MSAs and SS wouldn't be needed. I just hope I can remember what you said later, damaged memory.
We have two options to fix this: 1) Get rid of the tax loophole, so that people are taxed on the health care benefits they receive, or 2) Allow all health-care spending to be tax exempt. Personally, I prefer the first one, as the second one will distort demand for elective surgery, but I don't care very much either way, as long as one of them is done.
Personally I prefer my third choice, get rid of personal earned income tax.
By the way, I have issues with any 3rd party payment scheme, any honest doctor will agree.
So do I, if a person is responsible for paying for their own healthcare they will be more careful. Maybe not all but I'd hazard to guess many people would exercise more preventive healthcare, live a healthier lifestyle, and when needed would do more shopping for healthcare providers.
It does NOT enumerate any rights for non-citizens. If a foreign national visited the US, the government could imprison and execute him without trial, without once violating the Constitution.
I think you're missing something or are misinterpreting the Constitution of the USA and Bill of Rights. In the Constitution itself "citizen" is used a number of tymes, such as in the requirements to run federal office. However when enumerating rights in the Bill of Rights not once is "citizen" used, "people" is what's used. the first use of "citizen in the amendments is Amendment 11 when it says:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Again "citizen is in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. I'd say it's pretty obvious the Founding Fathers meant all people when they said people have these rights. And you can't say they were written at widely different tymes, the Bill of Right was ratified December 15, 1791 and the 11th was ratified February 7, 1795. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, was elected president in 1801, after the ratifications.
The U.S. government has no business in health care. The constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it guarantee heath care, personal property, a home, or any other products or services. The federal government needs to get out of housing business, education, etc. Some laws protecting rights are needed but there are no guarantees here. The federal government of the U.S. was designed for four things and, except for minor details of things that did not exist and were not covered, needs to stick to those four things.
With some additions I agree. Most federal agencies should be abolished. I'd keep the EPA though, pollution recognizes no artificial manmade lines on paper, neither local, state, or even national borders. Two others I'm not sure about, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. Maybe they could be privatized and made into nonprofits.
I'm not a Wal-Mart shill, I have not been paid for this posting, and TBH I would rather see my wife earning more in her hand each paycheque, but it does have to be said that the medical coverage and benefits she receives are second-to-none.
Maybe Walmart is different in Canada. According to this article, Wal-Martization of Health Care "More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees--600,000 people--are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses' plans--or live without any health insurance".
My tax dollars go to pay for hundreds of roads I'll never drive on, ambulances I'll never ride in, police officers who will never lend me a hand, defense attorneys I'll never need, garbage dumps I'll never put so much as a scrap of paper in, water systems I'll never take a drink from.
Tax on fuel should go to building and maintaining roads. Ambulances? I don't know where you are but everywhere I've been ambulances were privately owned not owned by the government. Defence lawyers? How do you know you'll never need one? Are you planning on dying now? Like other things, garbage collection and water are locally delivered, Unless you live in California, there they have to steal it from somewhere else to water their thirsty lawns. I'd rather not have to pay for trash either, or recycling for that matter. I recycle a hell of a lot more than I throw away, and I used to get paid for recycling.
In reality, however, the government is paying for a non-profit organization to perform a service that someone feels is necessary. This service might be anything from abstinence training to drug rehab or half-way housing. There's nothing wrong with any organization being paid to perform these duties - whether you or I agree with them or not.
I have not problem with these non profits, or for profits for that matter, doing these but I don't want my tax dollars going to them. I noticed someone up the thread provided a quote from a director of the office handing out the money that no money has been given to any non Christian group, in other word this was all about supporting Christianity all along. This galls me, I still recall having a ruler applied forcible to young students' hand in public schools for not pledging the allegiance because of the words, added in the 1950s, "under God".
On an aside note, the entire concept of employer-provided health insurance is really a giant flaw in the system. Employers don't provide food, water, or housing, health care should not be any different.
So, how are people supposed to get insurance then? Hopefully you won't say socialized medicine. Employers, by pooling their employees together are able to offer insurance cheaper than individual employees would pay for insurance on their own. If you're against employer provided insurance are you also against employer provided vacation? How about compensation for injuries sustained on the job? Is all of an employee's pay supposed to be strictly financial, with no benefits? So when Google gives all those benefits to new employees they are wrong? And I suppose you don't get any? Maybe that's why you don't want others getting them.
This is not a deep, unwavering belief. I have, in general, a libertarian bent. But ultimately I'm a pragmatist. I'm convinced the present system isn't very good (and have spoken to people who work in public health who agree with me), and I can see that the Europeans have a proven, working solution. The engineer in me says: "why not just copy the solution we know to work?"
Oh I agree the current system in the US is broken. But I place the blame on government. I don't see how more government will make it better. To the contrary, I believe less government will reduce costs. For instance the FDA requirements for approval of drugs add a lot to the cost of drugs. In order to have a drug approved pharmaceutical companies have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's not for research. Even today people are dying when a drug may be able to help them but because the FDA hasn't approved it they can't get it.
Justice for whom? Certainly not the doctor or his other patients. Let's just help all the poor schmucks be able to afford health care.
The one falsely harmed. Having personally experienced something similar I think I know what I'm talking about. Because of someone who should never have been allowed to drive, for the past ten years I've been living with a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. And my family would of been left with medical bills totally more than $120,000. It would of been cheaper for me to die.
Slashdot Mirror
The existence of the NRA is quite a bit more complex than that, and if you want a true 2nd Amendment group, look up the JPFO or GOA, not the NRA. But regardless, unlike the ACLU, they don't pretend to defend the entire Bill of Rights. Ultimately, it's the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st, not the ACLU.
That's something most don't think of or realize, the Second amendment protects all the others. JPFO? I don't recall that one but I've heard of the Gun Owners Of America, GOA. I don't really know much about it though.
FalconYou do need referrals from that doctor to specialists, but it's almost always forthcoming. I've never been turned down, even when the doctor said "I don't think you need this, but ..." So, you call or visit your GP and pick your specialist (or they'll suggest one) and off you go.
Thus driving up the costs of healthcare. I bet if you had to pay for healthcare out of pocket you wouldn't be so eager to see specialists.
I've similarly been able to get blood tests and such that we're "strictly necessary" just by saying that I was just afraid of getting Diabetes, etc.
As far as I'm concerned docs should order blood tests and maybe urinalysis at every visit, and the last doc I was seeing did that.
You see it as a system of very strict rationing. Personally, I see it as a land of plenty. It's so easy to see a doctor. One of our homeless could walk into one of the better clinics and get an appointment in an hour. They could go to a hospital and get treated immediately.
Thus driving up costs again. Sure people should be able to easily see a doc, however when someone else is paying for it, like a lot of other freebies, people will get as much as they can thus driving up costs. I bet if you had to pay out of pocket you wouldn't be so flippant about seeing a doc on a whim. As for hospitals, in the US even the homeless can go to the hospital. Unfortunately it frequently happens only when it's an emergency, which drives up costs. Better would be to allow walkin clinics on the street corner. However government has made this economically unfeasible with all the licensing and regulations, well off areas can afford it but not in poor areas.
That means I don't need to worry about a junkie stealing to afford a doctor. I don't need to worry about a Typhoid Mary wandering the streets. I don't need to worry that I lost my ID in an accident and won't get expensive treatment until they find it.
I didn't need one either when I had an accident. See, I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. Though I didn't have insurance I was airlifted to a hospital where I was admitted and treated. Though there was no guaranty any of them would ever get paid the hospital still admitted me and the docs treated me. My hospital stay cost more than $120,000, yet I got all that help without insurance.
Sure, if I get a weird brain cancer, I might have a better chance in the USA with my $20Mil. Of course, I don't have $20M and far more people die of untreated trivial infections than rare cancers, but hey...
Easy to take care of. Reduce or eliminate licensing and regulations so walkin clinics can be opened on the street corner in a poor neighborhood. Right now only wealthy areas can afford it.
FalconWhereas, when it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to certain people whom society dictated, and there was no "theory" about it they flat out said it did or didn't apply. Never was it written into the Constitution that neither women nor Africans would enjoy the same protections that white males did, but such was the case. And is still the case, just to a much lesser and less explicit extent, at least for those groups that spent literally hundreds of years fighting for their rights. Unfortunately some groups, based solely on the fact that they belong to the group or in some cases are even suspected of belonging, face grave repurcussions.
Actually Africans, both freemen and slaves owned firearms and both fought during the Revolutionary War or War of Independence. Some fought for America some for the British.
FalconOr if I smoke tobacco[Smokers' Rights Group], Pot[Libertarian], wear Tie Dye's [Leftist], Use an Apple Computer [Gay], Linux [Smart], Microsoft [Dumb]
If all this is true what is someone who smokes, wears tie dies, uses Macs, Linux, and Windows?
FalconYou mean like the Second Amendment? Oh yeah, that's right, they think it applies to state organized militias. You know, like the Federally funded, Federally equipped, Federally organized, and Federally controlled Nation Guard. Support the ACLU? No thanks, I'd rather support someone that doesn't cherry pick from the Bill of Rights.
What do you think the NRA did? they cherry picked the Second amendment. Of course that's the reason of their existence.
FalconAlso, it was the revised Patriot act, which was signed into law on March 9, 2006. I don't know if the offending provision was in the original act or not.
The case was filed before the act was revised. However offending parts were in the revised version as well.
FalconThey specifically attack the right to religious expression in schools and in public places.
The expression of religion in school, a public school, is not a right. As Thomas Jefferson said religion is a private matter and that's exactly where it should stay. Freedom from religion is as much a part of the First Amendment as is worship. Exhibits in public, not government, are another matter as long as it isn't paid for by taxpayer dollars. I have one simple question for those who support the display of Christian images and text such as the Ten Commandments in government building what they would think of having a display of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and the Wiccan Rede right next to it?
FalconI think, there are bigger problems this country is experiencing than pictures on a wall, or a cartoon in a newspaper. But it seems at every turn the ACLU is cherry-picking the little ones, and not taking on the meaningful ones. With few, rare exceptions. That's why I would oppose any tax funding of the ACLU.
Yea, one of those problems is income tax.
FalconAlso, Jesus wasn't a lawgiver, so your whole argument is bunk. Jesus was a law-breaker, who threw most of the Old Testaments rules out the window and replaced them with "love god" and "love thy neighbor." And those are wonderful philosophies, don't get me wrong, but they ain't exactly laws.
While I love those sentiments, well the neighbor part, to Christians they are the law. Laws they fail to follow frequently.
Falcon> If you mean that the NRA donates money to politicians,
That's exactly what I mean. Tax revenue sources don't tend to have much influence on federal policy. Campaign contributions have enormous influence.
The NRA is an example campaign contributions don't have much influence. If campaign contributions did have an effect people wouldn't needing to fight tooth and nail to keep their, our, right to bare arms.
FalconOh, don't worry. McCain is a closet fascist too; maybe worse than Guiliani. There was a whole article in Reason about it which I'm too lazy to link here.
In the run up to the 2000 election I supported McCain as the Republican candidate, but after reading the "Reason" article I was glad he lost.
FalconOK, you guys can hack at this argument but, we could have been stuck with king ALGORE. That would have been far worse. Talk about crooked hypocrites!
In 2000 because the race was so close, instead of voting for whom I wanted to I specifically voted against Bush by checking off Gore. Gore was bad but Bush is much worse. These past 6 years have proven that.
FalconI'm supporting Ron Paul until he drops from the race. He's the only candidate who I trust to say the truth. I may disagree with him in several ways but at least he will do what he says. The others will all lie to me and then do something else random. He's the only one who sticks to his principles.
While Ron Paul may make it through the Vermont and New Hampshire primaries I seriously doubt he'll make through the rest unfortunately. I voted from him in 1988 and would vote to vote for him in 2008.
FalconDuring World War Two, firms were experiencing labor shortages. The normal way of fixing a labor shortage, raising wages, was impossible because of wartime price controls. So the government allowed Companies to give workers health care tax free in lieu of wage increases. This little quirk is why you don't see such a policy in any other nation in the world.
Oh really, no other country's employer offer health insurance? What's this then?
People who reside in Japan must join either their employer's health insurance scheme or National Health Insurance, which is managed by the city, town or village.
Yet this is still way too expensive for workers who are currently facing major reforms in China's medical insurance system that are far from perfect and unlikely to meet such costs. Moreover, migrant workers are generally not included in employer health insurance schemes;
Even in China employers offer health insurance for their employees, though not to all.
If a company chooses to pay with health insurance, and the worker agrees, then that is fine. But that is not why we see widespread employer provided health-care. Suppose that if instead of health-care, you were paid with money. You would then be taxed on this money, and you now have around 30% less money to spend on health care. But if you are given the health care directly through an employer, you are not taxed (because of WW2 era rules). Because of this, it makes overwhelming sense to buy your health care through your employer.
Ok, I can see why employers, those who can afford it, will offer insurance. However employees can still get insurance from employers cheaper than they can on their own. As for income tax and having to pay more if you get paid more by the employer, so you can get your own insurance, that's another matter. Personally I'd eliminate all personal earned income tax. Because corporations offer their owners, shareholder or stockholders, limited liability I'd require corporations to pay income tax. Problem solved.
What is wrong with this? First, companies usually negotiate a single HMO or insurance company for all of their employees in exchange for some kickbacks. So these employees are stuck with a single insurance, and if they don't like it, competing companies are at a 30% disadvantage. So employer related health insurance companies have quite a bit of wiggle room in terms of service and price before hand. There are exceptions, like Google and American Airlines, but in general, most companies act in such a way.
WOW! You've given me something to think about, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Combined with Medical Savings Accounts, one on a very short list of things Bush has proposed I like the other being to allow workers to privatize some of their social security, it could work. Of course if earned income weren't taxed MSAs and SS wouldn't be needed. I just hope I can remember what you said later, damaged memory.
We have two options to fix this: 1) Get rid of the tax loophole, so that people are taxed on the health care benefits they receive, or 2) Allow all health-care spending to be tax exempt. Personally, I prefer the first one, as the second one will distort demand for elective surgery, but I don't care very much either way, as long as one of them is done.
Personally I prefer my third choice, get rid of personal earned income tax.
By the way, I have issues with any 3rd party payment scheme, any honest doctor will agree.
So do I, if a person is responsible for paying for their own healthcare they will be more careful. Maybe not all but I'd hazard to guess many people would exercise more preventive healthcare, live a healthier lifestyle, and when needed would do more shopping for healthcare providers.
FalconIt does NOT enumerate any rights for non-citizens. If a foreign national visited the US, the government could imprison and execute him without trial, without once violating the Constitution.
I think you're missing something or are misinterpreting the Constitution of the USA and Bill of Rights. In the Constitution itself "citizen" is used a number of tymes, such as in the requirements to run federal office. However when enumerating rights in the Bill of Rights not once is "citizen" used, "people" is what's used. the first use of "citizen in the amendments is Amendment 11 when it says:
Falcon"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Again "citizen is in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. I'd say it's pretty obvious the Founding Fathers meant all people when they said people have these rights. And you can't say they were written at widely different tymes, the Bill of Right was ratified December 15, 1791 and the 11th was ratified February 7, 1795. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, was elected president in 1801, after the ratifications.
All of the extra-constitutional departments should be defunded.
No, not just defunded, but abolished.
FalconWhy? Most of us (republicans, democrats, misc.) are very happy with large government. Care to explain your point of view?
As Thomas Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground". That's exactly what has happened.
FalconThe U.S. government has no business in health care. The constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it guarantee heath care, personal property, a home, or any other products or services. The federal government needs to get out of housing business, education, etc. Some laws protecting rights are needed but there are no guarantees here. The federal government of the U.S. was designed for four things and, except for minor details of things that did not exist and were not covered, needs to stick to those four things.
With some additions I agree. Most federal agencies should be abolished. I'd keep the EPA though, pollution recognizes no artificial manmade lines on paper, neither local, state, or even national borders. Two others I'm not sure about, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. Maybe they could be privatized and made into nonprofits.
FalconI'm not a Wal-Mart shill, I have not been paid for this posting, and TBH I would rather see my wife earning more in her hand each paycheque, but it does have to be said that the medical coverage and benefits she receives are second-to-none.
Maybe Walmart is different in Canada. According to this article, Wal-Martization of Health Care "More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees--600,000 people--are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses' plans--or live without any health insurance".
FalconMy tax dollars go to pay for hundreds of roads I'll never drive on, ambulances I'll never ride in, police officers who will never lend me a hand, defense attorneys I'll never need, garbage dumps I'll never put so much as a scrap of paper in, water systems I'll never take a drink from.
Tax on fuel should go to building and maintaining roads. Ambulances? I don't know where you are but everywhere I've been ambulances were privately owned not owned by the government. Defence lawyers? How do you know you'll never need one? Are you planning on dying now? Like other things, garbage collection and water are locally delivered, Unless you live in California, there they have to steal it from somewhere else to water their thirsty lawns. I'd rather not have to pay for trash either, or recycling for that matter. I recycle a hell of a lot more than I throw away, and I used to get paid for recycling.
FalconIn reality, however, the government is paying for a non-profit organization to perform a service that someone feels is necessary. This service might be anything from abstinence training to drug rehab or half-way housing. There's nothing wrong with any organization being paid to perform these duties - whether you or I agree with them or not.
I have not problem with these non profits, or for profits for that matter, doing these but I don't want my tax dollars going to them. I noticed someone up the thread provided a quote from a director of the office handing out the money that no money has been given to any non Christian group, in other word this was all about supporting Christianity all along. This galls me, I still recall having a ruler applied forcible to young students' hand in public schools for not pledging the allegiance because of the words, added in the 1950s, "under God".
FalconOn an aside note, the entire concept of employer-provided health insurance is really a giant flaw in the system. Employers don't provide food, water, or housing, health care should not be any different.
So, how are people supposed to get insurance then? Hopefully you won't say socialized medicine. Employers, by pooling their employees together are able to offer insurance cheaper than individual employees would pay for insurance on their own. If you're against employer provided insurance are you also against employer provided vacation? How about compensation for injuries sustained on the job? Is all of an employee's pay supposed to be strictly financial, with no benefits? So when Google gives all those benefits to new employees they are wrong? And I suppose you don't get any? Maybe that's why you don't want others getting them.
FalconThis is not a deep, unwavering belief. I have, in general, a libertarian bent. But ultimately I'm a pragmatist. I'm convinced the present system isn't very good (and have spoken to people who work in public health who agree with me), and I can see that the Europeans have a proven, working solution. The engineer in me says: "why not just copy the solution we know to work?"
Oh I agree the current system in the US is broken. But I place the blame on government. I don't see how more government will make it better. To the contrary, I believe less government will reduce costs. For instance the FDA requirements for approval of drugs add a lot to the cost of drugs. In order to have a drug approved pharmaceutical companies have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's not for research. Even today people are dying when a drug may be able to help them but because the FDA hasn't approved it they can't get it.
I say don't fix it, get rid of it.
FalconYou just pointed out an instance of government inefficiency through graft. This is why we don't let them develop all our drugs.
I'd rather government not develop any drugs. Let private entities develop them. Then allow anyone to manufacture them.
FalconJustice for whom? Certainly not the doctor or his other patients. Let's just help all the poor schmucks be able to afford health care.
The one falsely harmed. Having personally experienced something similar I think I know what I'm talking about. Because of someone who should never have been allowed to drive, for the past ten years I've been living with a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. And my family would of been left with medical bills totally more than $120,000. It would of been cheaper for me to die.
Falcon