Some Perspective on Massive Gulf Dead Zone: Agriculture

[AZGrizFan]

At issue is the govt deciding who does or does not have private land ownership rights. Constitutional matter really. I don't give a rats ass about the protectionism vs coporate interest thing, that's really immaterial to this. The issue is weather or not it is OK for the government to decide what rights can be bestowed on any segement of the population as opposed to different rights for other segements.

No, Illinois is not a democratic state, Chicago is, but the vast majority of downstate is as conservative and backasswards as any place you care to name. They hate blacks, gays, fly their confederate flags, and have gun racks in the back windows of their rusted out chevy pickups.

Only a Mensa member could involve the weather into a govermental rights arguement.

That depends on which segement of Mensa you're referring to.

[JohnStOnge]

A law with a govt mandate on who has private property rights is fine.

A law that would guarantee equal access to our health care system to the poorest of the poor is socialism.

Well, shoot. First time I read you taking about that but I have no problem responding: I'm against both laws. I don't think government should be madating that corporations can't buy land and I also don't think government should be in the business of guaranteeing that people have access to services provided by others.

To me medical care is a service. Someone becomes a Doctor, for instance, and says they'll charge certain fees for their services. That should be between them and whoever wants their services. Government shouldn't be involved at all. Same with insurance. An insurance company says it'll provide a hedge against catostrophic illness costs for a fee. If you've got any sense you realize going in that the likelihood is that you're going to pay more for medical care over your lifetime paying for the insurance along with your share of the medical care than you would juw5 directly paying for your medical care. At least that's the way it should work.

It's ridiculous to say stuff like an insurance company has to insure someone with a pre-existing condition that they KNOW is going to cause them to pay out more than they're going to take in. The whole point of what they're doing is playing the odds. They should never be forced to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to engage in commerce with regardless of the reason and neither should any other entity or person.

People should be free to advance themselves and buy what they want. And government shouldn't be trying to guarantee people that it'll provide things they can't buy to them.

[kalm]

A law with a govt mandate on who has private property rights is fine.

A law that would guarantee equal access to our health care system to the poorest of the poor is socialism.

Well, shoot. First time I read you taking about that but I have no problem responding: I'm against both laws. I don't think government should be madating that corporations can't buy land and I also don't think government should be in the business of guaranteeing that people have access to services provided by others.

To me medical care is a service. Someone becomes a Doctor, for instance, and says they'll charge certain fees for their services. That should be between them and whoever wants their services. Government shouldn't be involved at all. Same with insurance. An insurance company says it'll provide a hedge against catostrophic illness costs for a fee. If you've got any sense you realize going in that the likelihood is that you're going to pay more for medical care over your lifetime paying for the insurance along with your share of the medical care than you would juw5 directly paying for your medical care. At least that's the way it should work.

It's ridiculous to say stuff like an insurance company has to insure someone with a pre-existing condition that they KNOW is going to cause them to pay out more than they're going to take in. The whole point of what they're doing is playing the odds. They should never be forced to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to engage in commerce with regardless of the reason and neither should any other entity or person.

People should be free to advance themselves and buy what they want. And government shouldn't be trying to guarantee people that it'll provide things they can't buy to them.

Not everything in life has to be for a profit John. The rest of the world has figured this out concerning basic healthcare.

[native]

Well, shoot. First time I read you taking about that but I have no problem responding: I'm against both laws. I don't think government should be madating that corporations can't buy land and I also don't think government should be in the business of guaranteeing that people have access to services provided by others.

To me medical care is a service. Someone becomes a Doctor, for instance, and says they'll charge certain fees for their services. That should be between them and whoever wants their services. Government shouldn't be involved at all. Same with insurance. An insurance company says it'll provide a hedge against catostrophic illness costs for a fee. If you've got any sense you realize going in that the likelihood is that you're going to pay more for medical care over your lifetime paying for the insurance along with your share of the medical care than you would juw5 directly paying for your medical care. At least that's the way it should work.

It's ridiculous to say stuff like an insurance company has to insure someone with a pre-existing condition that they KNOW is going to cause them to pay out more than they're going to take in. The whole point of what they're doing is playing the odds. They should never be forced to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to engage in commerce with regardless of the reason and neither should any other entity or person.

People should be free to advance themselves and buy what they want. And government shouldn't be trying to guarantee people that it'll provide things they can't buy to them.

Not everything in life has to be for a profit John. The rest of the world has figured this out concerning basic healthcare.

Only a tiny number of disabled persons cannot afford basic healthcare. No one who spends money on drugs, tobacco, booze, or any of a number of non-essential consumer goods deserves a penny from the public coffers.

[CID1990]

Well, shoot. First time I read you taking about that but I have no problem responding: I'm against both laws. I don't think government should be madating that corporations can't buy land and I also don't think government should be in the business of guaranteeing that people have access to services provided by others.

To me medical care is a service. Someone becomes a Doctor, for instance, and says they'll charge certain fees for their services. That should be between them and whoever wants their services. Government shouldn't be involved at all. Same with insurance. An insurance company says it'll provide a hedge against catostrophic illness costs for a fee. If you've got any sense you realize going in that the likelihood is that you're going to pay more for medical care over your lifetime paying for the insurance along with your share of the medical care than you would juw5 directly paying for your medical care. At least that's the way it should work.

It's ridiculous to say stuff like an insurance company has to insure someone with a pre-existing condition that they KNOW is going to cause them to pay out more than they're going to take in. The whole point of what they're doing is playing the odds. They should never be forced to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to engage in commerce with regardless of the reason and neither should any other entity or person.

People should be free to advance themselves and buy what they want. And government shouldn't be trying to guarantee people that it'll provide things they can't buy to them.

Not everything in life has to be for a profit John. The rest of the world has figured this out concerning basic healthcare.

If you want people to work in the field of medicine, it does.

[kalm]

Not everything in life has to be for a profit John. The rest of the world has figured this out concerning basic healthcare.

If you want people to work in the field of medicine, it does.

Doctor's can still make their money, just eliminate for-profit insurance.

[kalm]

Not everything in life has to be for a profit John. The rest of the world has figured this out concerning basic healthcare.

Only a tiny number of disabled persons cannot afford basic healthcare. No one who spends money on drugs, tobacco, booze, or any of a number of non-essential consumer goods deserves a penny from the public coffers.

OK Mr. Nanny State, who decides what's non-essential? High fructose corn syrup? meat? trans fats? Besides, toxins keep the doctors in business. Imagine the hit the medical industry would take if we actually took care of ourselves.

[native]

Only a tiny number of disabled persons cannot afford basic healthcare. No one who spends money on drugs, tobacco, booze, or any of a number of non-essential consumer goods deserves a penny from the public coffers.

OK Mr. Nanny State, who decides what's non-essential? High fructose corn syrup? meat? trans fats? Besides, toxins keep the doctors in business. Imagine the hit the medical industry would take if we actually took care of ourselves.

You make my point, kalm. Get the government out of healthcare except for the severely disabled who are unable to care for themselves.

Thank you.

[native]

If you want people to work in the field of medicine, it does.

Doctor's can still make their money, just eliminate for-profit insurance.

Do not buy insurance if you do not want it. Choose to take the risk yourself or join a co-op if you prefer. Better yet, use all your misdirected energy to start your own co-op!

[Skjellyfetti]

edit: wrong thread

[JohnStOnge]

Not everything in life has to be for a profit John. The rest of the world has figured this out concerning basic healthcare.

The rest of the world is going down the wrong road and we are too. Just not to the same extent yet.

It's not about profit. It's about liberty. If we say that someone has an entitlement...a right...to goods or services provided by others we must say that if necessary it is correct for government to force someone else to give it to them. Taken to it's logical end, that would include even controlling what fields people go into so that there is assurance that there are enough people with given skills to provide what others are entitled to.

Plus there is something really, really bad about development of a culture in which people presume they are entitled to have others fulfill their basic needs. A situation has developed in which it seems that if one can show that someone has a need, it is believed to be self evident that government should take care of that. To me that is part of cultural decay. More and more development of the prevalent entitlement mentality.

I reject the idea that people are entitled, just by virtue of their existence, to health care, food, shelter, or anything else. What they are entitled to is the freedom to pursue those things. People are entitled to liberty. Nothing else. And in embracing the idea that people are entitled to goods and services that must be provided by others we have attacked the thing (liberty) that people really should be entitled to.

[native]

So does the reaction from the far right and tea party types over the madate rule out Mitt Romney in 2012? Can Romney credibly challenge Obama on the health care bill in 2012? Will more conservative people roast him over the fire in the primaries?

If Romney does not change his tune and articulate a better policy looking forward, I sure hope he is vigorously challenged on the healthcare issues.

[JohnStOnge]

There's another aspect with respect to how the entitlement mentality impacts liberty. When government is taking care of you...saying it will absorb or share in the cost of your health care for instance...government is provided with an argument for a right to control your behavior. Thus we can say that government is justified in forcing people to wear seat belts, for instance, because if people don't wear seat belts that represents a cost to the society. If government is guaranteeing our health care, government can claim the right to control how we behave in many ways. Government has an interest in our diets, how much sleep we get, whether we smoke or drink or not, whether or not we wear seat belts, etc. Anything we do that is known or believed to increase the risk of some health problem becomes a matter government can claim a "legitimate" interest in controlling.

I"m not saying that universal health care will take us to that situation. We are already largely in that situation. But universal health care would make it worse.

[native]

Not everything in life has to be for a profit John. The rest of the world has figured this out concerning basic healthcare.

The rest of the world is going down the wrong road and we are too. Just not to the same extent yet.

It's not about profit. It's about liberty. If we say that someone has an entitlement...a right...to goods or services provided by others we must say that if necessary it is correct for government to force someone else to give it to them. Taken to it's logical end, that would include even controlling what fields people go into so that there is assurance that there are enough people with given skills to provide what others are entitled to.

Plus there is something really, really bad about development of a culture in which people presume they are entitled to have others fulfill their basic needs. A situation has developed in which it seems that if one can show that someone has a need, it is believed to be self evident that government should take care of that. To me that is part of cultural decay. More and more development of the prevalent entitlement mentality.

I reject the idea that people are entitled, just by virtue of their existence, to health care, food, shelter, or anything else. What they are entitled to is the freedom to pursue those things. People are entitled to liberty. Nothing else. And in embracing the idea that people are entitled to goods and services that must be provided by others we have attacked the thing (liberty) that people really should be entitled to.

There's another aspect with respect to how the entitlement mentality impacts liberty. When government is taking care of you...saying it will absorb or share in the cost of your health care for instance...government is provided with an argument for a right to control your behavior. Thus we can say that government is justified in forcing people to wear seat belts, for instance, because if people don't wear seat belts that represents a cost to the society. If government is guaranteeing our health care, government can claim the right to control how we behave in many ways. Government has an interest in our diets, how much sleep we get, whether we smoke or drink or not, whether or not we wear seat belts, etc. Anything we do that is known or believed to increase the risk of some health problem becomes a matter government can claim a "legitimate" interest in controlling.

I"m not saying that universal health care will take us to that situation. We are already largely in that situation. But universal health care would make it worse.

Severely understated, but well said nonetheless.

[kalm]

The rest of the world is going down the wrong road and we are too. Just not to the same extent yet.

It's not about profit. It's about liberty. If we say that someone has an entitlement...a right...to goods or services provided by others we must say that if necessary it is correct for government to force someone else to give it to them. Taken to it's logical end, that would include even controlling what fields people go into so that there is assurance that there are enough people with given skills to provide what others are entitled to.

Plus there is something really, really bad about development of a culture in which people presume they are entitled to have others fulfill their basic needs. A situation has developed in which it seems that if one can show that someone has a need, it is believed to be self evident that government should take care of that. To me that is part of cultural decay. More and more development of the prevalent entitlement mentality.

I reject the idea that people are entitled, just by virtue of their existence, to health care, food, shelter, or anything else. What they are entitled to is the freedom to pursue those things. People are entitled to liberty. Nothing else. And in embracing the idea that people are entitled to goods and services that must be provided by others we have attacked the thing (liberty) that people really should be entitled to.

There's another aspect with respect to how the entitlement mentality impacts liberty. When government is taking care of you...saying it will absorb or share in the cost of your health care for instance...government is provided with an argument for a right to control your behavior. Thus we can say that government is justified in forcing people to wear seat belts, for instance, because if people don't wear seat belts that represents a cost to the society. If government is guaranteeing our health care, government can claim the right to control how we behave in many ways. Government has an interest in our diets, how much sleep we get, whether we smoke or drink or not, whether or not we wear seat belts, etc. Anything we do that is known or believed to increase the risk of some health problem becomes a matter government can claim a "legitimate" interest in controlling.

I"m not saying that universal health care will take us to that situation. We are already largely in that situation. But universal health care would make it worse.

Severely understated, but well said nonetheless.

Well then. I'm heading to Norway to liberate those poor bastards who have lived under the oppresive yoke of non-profit risk distribution for nigh on 50 years now. And I'm bringin' it with a 40 of OE, bottle of Jack, a big ass ribeye, some twinkies, and a pack of smokes - cause you know they haven't seen those for awhile.

Man do you guys hate democracy.

[CID1990]

Severely understated, but well said nonetheless.

Well then. I'm heading to Norway to liberate those poor bastards who have lived under the oppresive yoke of non-profit risk distribution for nigh on 50 years now. And I'm bringin' it with a 40 of OE, bottle of Jack, a big ass ribeye, some twinkies, and a pack of smokes - cause you know they haven't seen those for awhile.

Man do you guys hate democracy.

Nice leap. Typical DONK loses a reasoned argument and suddenly that means somebody be hatin' on some democracy.

It's like intentionally starving school children, or sumthin.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

St. Onge had some powerful responses in the last page.

[dbackjon]

St. Onge had some powerful responses in the last page.

He's been stoked by this victory of Republicanism:

House Republicans Block Bill Aiming to Prevent Child Marriage

This week, House Republicans blocked passage of a bipartisan bill to protect women and girls in developing countries from child marriages. The bill needed a two-thirds majority of the House to pass, but fell short by the count of 241-166.

The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, a bill championed in the Senate by the chamber's No. 2 Democrat Dick Durbin and moderate Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, would require the federal government to develop a plan to combat child marriage with the goal of eliminating the practice worldwide.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/1 ... riage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

St. Onge had some powerful responses in the last page.

He's been stoked by this victory of Republicanism:

House Republicans Block Bill Aiming to Prevent Child Marriage

This week, House Republicans blocked passage of a bipartisan bill to protect women and girls in developing countries from child marriages. The bill needed a two-thirds majority of the House to pass, but fell short by the count of 241-166.

The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, a bill championed in the Senate by the chamber's No. 2 Democrat Dick Durbin and moderate Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, would require the federal government to develop a plan to combat child marriage with the goal of eliminating the practice worldwide.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/1 ... riage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the fuck is our government doing getting involved with the laws of other countries now?

Maybe I misunderstood this.

[kalm]

St. Onge had some powerful responses in the last page.

Yes he did. Then again, self reliance is a much easier argument to make.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

St. Onge had some powerful responses in the last page.

Yes he did. Then again, self reliance is a much easier argument to make.

It is and I haven't told you lately that I love you, so there it is brother.

[kalm]

Yes he did. Then again, self reliance is a much easier argument to make.

It is and I haven't told you lately that I love you, so there it is brother.

I'm blushing.

[CID1990]

It is and I haven't told you lately that I love you, so there it is brother.

I'm blushing.

You guys about to have a virtual spit-swap? Jeez.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I'm blushing.

You guys about to have a virtual spit-swap? Jeez.

Sorry we left you out this time my man.

Next time.

[Cap'n Cat]

Re: MY thread -

Jon and OSBF = +1