2018 elections

[RavenHawk]

On 2/5/2018 at 11:13 AM, Aquila King said:

Unfortunately none of these candidates are in my home State of Kentucky, But these are really the only candidates I ever would support: https://now.justicedemocrats.com/candidates

Looks like all losers that don't know what government is for or the reality of how it does.  To some degree, I agree on some of those things they are for but not in the way they want to achieve them.  Healthcare for all is a fine thing but you don't do it by robbing others.  Government should never get involved in such things that are so very personal for individuals.  It puts government in the position of life and death over the people.  That is not the function of government.  At least the one given to us by the Founding Fathers.  Government must create the environment that allows people to thrive under their own destiny.  They can't do that when the government enslaves the people with dole.

[Aquila King]

55 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

They can't do that when the government enslaves the people with dole.

I can't for the life of me understand why you consider providing healthcare and education to people who can't afford it 'enslavement'.

That is such an incredibly huge leap of logic it's hard for me to truly fathom...

[aztek]

because it is  only possible by taxing the hell out of you, but since you a child who lives with  parents, and live off them you would not understand, maybe if they take away your allowance, and give it to a guy who begs for money by the corner store, you'll get the idea

Edited June 7, 2018 by aztek

[hatecraft]

25 minutes ago, aztek said:

because it is  only possible by taxing the hell out of you, but since you a child who lives with  parents, and live off them you would not understand, maybe if they take away your allowance, and give it to a guy who begs for money by the corner store, you'll get the idea

Burn.

[RavenHawk]

53 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I can't for the life of me understand why you consider providing healthcare and education to people who can't afford it 'enslavement'.

you just answered your own question.  It is taking advantage of those that can't fend for themselves.  You don't help people in that kind of situation, you enslave them and they become dependent on someone else for the rest of their lives and that puts an unsustainable burden on the others.  In time it drags those others into the realm of the dependent and a nation's wealth is squandered.  I don't suppose you understood any of that?

[aztek]

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

you just answered your own question.  It is taking advantage of those that can't fend for themselves.  You don't help people in that kind of situation, you enslave them and they become dependent on someone else for the rest of their lives and that puts an unsustainable burden on the others.  In time it drags those others into the realm of the dependent and a nation's wealth is squandered.  I don't suppose you understood any of that?

That's just nonsense. If someone gets injured in an accident and needs medical treatment in order to survive, providing that treatment to them rather than shunning them due to lack of money is not in any way 'taking advantage of the helpless', in fact it's the exact opposite. Sucking people dry of all their money to pay for insurance which then leads to people go into medical bankruptcy just to pay for their absolutely necessary medical bills is the very definition of taking advantage of the weak and helpless.

Private insurance companies are profiting off the sick and injured, because sick and injured people don't waste their time 'shopping around' for people to heal them, and they don't just 'live without treating it' because in many cases if they don't they'll die. Healthcare just isn't akin to any other private goods or services, we're talking about people's health and lives here.

And this isn't in any way shape or form 'enslavement' of any kind. You're just asserting that to be true without any merit. The only difference between the government paying the bill versus you personally paying the bill, is that you personally may not have the money or go into bankruptcy and therefore possibly die.

Insuring the health and well being of the American people is one of the one things in which it's impossible to 'squander' the nation's wealth on. It's kinda the entire point of government in the first place.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, aztek said:

How many homeless people are ever hired to do anything? That kinda shoots your whole argument right in the foot.

[F3SS]

41 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

How many homeless people are ever hired to do anything? That kinda shoots your whole argument right in the foot.

I had a homeless guy work for me for about two years. He’d take a bus to work and slept in shelters.

In fact, I just remember another guy I hired through an ad I ran in the paper. He was homeless. Slept in his car and had a big and old dog that lived with him in the car. It was strange but he came in and did a decent job while his pooch stayed in the car with food and water. Then after one week I never heard from the guy again but I did give him a job and was welcome to stay with us. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by F3SS

[hatecraft]

45 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

How many homeless people are ever hired to do anything? That kinda shoots your whole argument right in the foot.

Happens countless times every single day.

[Michelle]

17 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I had a homeless guy work for me for about two years. He’d take a bus to work and slept in shelters.

The homeless shelter is near our shop. In 30 years we've hired quite a few. One, who worked for us for about five years until he became disabled, still hangs around and volunteers when we need a third hand with what he can do.

[Aquila King]

A bunch of anecdotal accounts of hiring homeless people doesn't mean that they aren't statistically less likely to be hired then other people.

[F3SS]

17 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

A bunch of anecdotal accounts of hiring homeless people doesn't mean that they aren't statistically less likely to be hired then other people.

So we shoot your snide little comment right in the foot and you plug your ears. Expected but still worth noting.

[Aquila King]

5 minutes ago, F3SS said:

So we shoot your snide little comment right in the foot and you plug your ears. Expected but still worth noting.

My 'snide little comment' was based on real-world facts:

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why-homeless-people-dont-just-get-a-job

It's facts that shoot your argument in the foot. And as for 'plugging my ears', I'd say it at least helps to drown out your bulls**t.

[F3SS]

11 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

My 'snide little comment' was based on real-world facts:

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why-homeless-people-dont-just-get-a-job

It's facts that shoot your argument in the foot. And as for 'plugging my ears', I'd say it at least helps to drown out your bulls**t.

You’re just mad because I’ve actually done two things you never have. Helped the homeless and created jobs.

Edited June 8, 2018 by F3SS

[Aquila King]

3 minutes ago, F3SS said:

You’re just mad because I’ve actually done two things you never have. Helped the homeless and created jobs.

Lol, now who's plugging their ears?

[F3SS]

31 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Lol, now who's plugging their ears?

I’m not arguing that homeless by and large do not seek work, cannot seek work or do not get hired often when they do but you asked a question and just 2 of us gave you 3 instances of homeless people being hired.  

[RavenHawk]

19 hours ago, Aquila King said:

That's just nonsense.

I told you that you wouldn't understand it.

If someone gets injured in an accident and needs medical treatment in order to survive, providing that treatment to them rather than shunning them due to lack of money is not in any way 'taking advantage of the helpless', in fact it's the exact opposite. Sucking people dry of all their money to pay for insurance which then leads to people go into medical bankruptcy just to pay for their absolutely necessary medical bills is the very definition of taking advantage of the weak and helpless.

So you are implying that the people of this nation are sickly and accident prone?  So much so, that the wealthy need to cover our sorry ar$es?  Anyway, it's not the care but the cost that is the issue.  People in this country aren't turned away from critical care.  People make poor choices in life.  Why should the rest of us have to pay?  That is the majority of costs.  Unless we are a nation of victims, those that do get seriously ill or hurt from other than their own actions will be a fraction of all illness and injury.  But again, why should everyone have to pay for bad luck?  There has to be a better answer.  Something that doesn't include socialized medicine or socialized anything.  Socialism is a trap that sounds good on the surface but only entices the fly further into the web.

Private insurance companies are profiting off the sick and injured,

If companies couldn't make a profit, there wouldn't be insurance at all.  You need to do a little studying on Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand.  For some, the free market isn't all that intuitive.  That describes you.

because sick and injured people don't waste their time 'shopping around' for people to heal them, and they don't just 'live without treating it' because in many cases if they don't they'll die. Healthcare just isn't akin to any other private goods or services, we're talking about people's health and lives here.

If people are serious about planning for future problems then maybe the individual (and people in general) should be smarter to avoid such calamity.  Instead of paying insurance, you pay a monthly flat rate for concierge medicine.  That's just one thought.

And this isn't in any way shape or form 'enslavement' of any kind. You're just asserting that to be true without any merit.

What do you call it then when the government steps in to take care of people?  Charity?  Sorry dude, but once this happens, you are bought and sold.  You're on the hook at the whims of the government.  What the government gives, it can take away.  And does quite often.  When you become dependent on something, you become a whore of the government.  And that's exactly how people on government assistance act.

The only difference between the government paying the bill versus you personally paying the bill, is that you personally may not have the money or go into bankruptcy and therefore possibly die.

Technically, the government doesn't have money either.  It belongs to the tax payer.  Tax dollars go toward the most common and generic uses.  Universal Healthcare is not one of them.  Just because something has something like “Universal” in the name, doesn't mean it is.  This confuses reality.  Everyone requires different levels of need, therefore, it's not universal because some will require more than others.  And that's where you get special interest groups.

Insuring the health and well being of the American people is one of the one things in which it's impossible to 'squander' the nation's wealth on. It's kinda the entire point of government in the first place.

There's where your confusion comes in.  The government is not your mother and father.  If the government wants to insure the health and wellbeing then it should allow the individual to take care of themselves.  Babysitting isn't the entire point of government.  The purpose is to run a nation, not get entangled in the lives (infringing) of the people.  Besides, show me a government program that doesn't squander money.
 

[skliss]

On 6/7/2018 at 9:34 AM, Truthseeker007 said:

You have to think that it will all implode sooner or later. If robots do take over a lot of the minimum wage jobs not many people will have any money to buy anything. I have heard of talk where each person will get so much money per month but then you wonder where is that money going to come from? Unless some of the corporations put some of their excess money in a pot for people that can't work which I don't see happening. Am I missing something her?

Not as far as I can see.

[Farmer77]

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:34 AM, Truthseeker007 said:

You have to think that it will all implode sooner or later. If robots do take over a lot of the minimum wage jobs not many people will have any money to buy anything. I have heard of talk where each person will get so much money per month but then you wonder where is that money going to come from? Unless some of the corporations put some of their excess money in a pot for people that can't work which I don't see happening. Am I missing something her?

it will require government taxation of companies that have automated in favor of human employees. 

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I told you that you wouldn't understand it.

I'm incapable of understanding the irrational. That's why it's called irrational, because it by definition makes no sense.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

So you are implying that the people of this nation are sickly and accident prone?  So much so, that the wealthy need to cover our sorry ar$es?

No more so then any other nation. However it is a fact of reality that accidents happen, illnesses occur, and they happen to people regardless of income.

If the government doesn't protect these people then no one will. It's as simple as that.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Anyway, it's not the care but the cost that is the issue.

The cost isn't the issue, as proven through multiple studies:

• https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/216578.pdf
• https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-1994/reports/93doc171.pdf
• https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/64xx/doc6432/93doc159.pdf
• https://secure.epi.org/files/page/-/old/technicalpapers/tp234_1998.pdf
• https://www.healthcare-now.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/National-Thorpe-2005-Impacts-of-Health-Care-Reform.pdf

If it was a matter of cost, then we wouldn't have the money to build the most over-bloated military the world's ever seen. Our government is more concerned with killing brown people over seas then it is about looking after the health and well-being of it's own citizens. It isn't a matter of cost, it's a matter of priorities.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

People in this country aren't turned away from critical care.

That's a lie: http://www.pnhp.org/mortality

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

People make poor choices in life.  Why should the rest of us have to pay?

These people made all the right choices in life, and still felt the negative repercussions of a system that doesn't provide healthcare to it's citizens. If you read their stories in the link provided and still don't find it a worthy cause for your tax dollars, then the problem isn't your lack of understanding, the problem is your lack of empathy.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That is the majority of costs.  Unless we are a nation of victims, those that do get seriously ill or hurt from other than their own actions will be a fraction of all illness and injury.

People are sick, going bankrupt from medical bills, and even dying, due to a lack of healthcare coverage, often time through no fault of their own; and we have a fiscally proven solution (universal single-payer healthcare) to the problem that has been proven through numerous case studies listed above, as well as having it implemented in various other countries around the globe. We have a medical crisis in the US due to lack of healthcare coverage, and we know as a fact what the solution is.

This isn't about 'being a nation of victims'. This is about solving a genuine problem. Labeling those who are suffering from a problem that could easily be solved as 'playing the victim' is an easy way of dismissing the problem entirely.

For example: Take Trump's claim of illegal immigrants being rapists and criminals, and how right-wingers want to deport them and build a wall and whatnot. What if I simply responded: "You're afraid of illegal immigrants being rapists and criminals? Stop being such a nation of victims! You're just playing the victim here. Get over it." Do you see how this is just a way of dismissing your opponents argument, rather than refuting it? I don't use that argument, and instead I opt to simply expressing the statistical fact that most illegal immigrants aren't violent criminals, and there are a myriad of different reasons why they're not anyone you should fear. Because simply slandering you by claiming "You're just playing the victim." doesn't address your argument in the least.

I'm pointing out a legitimate problem, and proposing a legitimate solution. If you disagree with it then by all means, you're welcome to try and refute it, but simply dismissing the problem by claiming your opponent is just 'playing the victim' is not any way to win an argument, and it sure isn't any sort of solution.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

But again, why should everyone have to pay for bad luck?  There has to be a better answer.  Something that doesn't include socialized medicine or socialized anything.  Socialism is a trap that sounds good on the surface but only entices the fly further into the web.

Unfortunately for you, there is no other solution. And you've yet to demonstrate how it's in any way some sort of 'dangerous trap'.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If companies couldn't make a profit, there wouldn't be insurance at all.  You need to do a little studying on Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand.  For some, the free market isn't all that intuitive.  That describes you.

I'm not in any way advocating for private insurance, so this is totally irrelevant.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If people are serious about planning for future problems then maybe the individual (and people in general) should be smarter to avoid such calamity.  Instead of paying insurance, you pay a monthly flat rate for concierge medicine.  That's just one thought.

I've already explained how there are many instances of people who plan ahead and through various circumstances are left without it. Check the links above.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

What do you call it then when the government steps in to take care of people?  Charity?  Sorry dude, but once this happens, you are bought and sold.  You're on the hook at the whims of the government.  What the government gives, it can take away.  And does quite often.

In a democratic society, if the government does something that you don't like, you can simply elect politicians to pass legislation that corrects whatever problems you face. That's how democracy works. In a democracy, the government is on the hook at the whims of the people. What the people give, they can take away.

I swear, it's like you don't understand the most basic tenets of Democracy...

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

When you become dependent on something, you become a whore of the government.  And that's exactly how people on government assistance act.

Slandering the needed. Excellent. That's not an argument in your favor though. Doesn't change a single fact that I've presented thus far, since you're simply name-calling.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Technically, the government doesn't have money either.  It belongs to the tax payer.  Tax dollars go toward the most common and generic uses.  Universal Healthcare is not one of them.

Yes it is. People need it as protection against illness and injury, just as people need police work and the military in order to protect them from external and internal threats. Healthcare is one of the most common and generic uses imaginable.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Just because something has something like “Universal” in the name, doesn't mean it is.  This confuses reality.  Everyone requires different levels of need, therefore, it's not universal because some will require more than others.  And that's where you get special interest groups.

Universal Healthcare protections apply to all citizens universally based on need.

The same is true in regards to any US law. All laws in the US apply to all it's citizens universally. That doesn't mean that all people obey those laws equally, obviously they don't. The people who break those laws are the ones who feel the repercussions of the laws as opposed to those who abide by them. Yet the laws apply to all citizens universally.

Some people require more police protections then others (if they have violent family members, live in a rough neighborhood, etc.), yet these police protections exist for all people universally. Some people live their whole lives never having to dial 911 and never even getting so much as a speeding ticket, others through whatever circumstances end up having to call the cops for various reasons on the regular. The police protections exist for those who need it based on circumstance. They exist universally on the merits of the situation, not on the individuals themselves.

The same applies to universal healthcare. The 'universal' part applies to all medical circumstances. That doesn't mean that all people require the same medical treatment.

I think I've explained this thoroughly enough now, so I you still don't get this concept then that's on you. I won't repeat myself.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

There's where your confusion comes in.  The government is not your mother and father.  If the government wants to insure the health and wellbeing then it should allow the individual to take care of themselves.  Babysitting isn't the entire point of government.  The purpose is to run a nation, not get entangled in the lives (infringing) of the people.

By 'running the nation' it is in effect 'entangling itself in the lives of the citizens'.

Under your logic, the government passing any law ever is an 'infringement' of people's freedoms. Murder illegal? The government should legalize it cause it infringes on people's freedoms. Rape illegal? The government needs to back off and let rapists rape away! Don't wanna 'infringe' on their freedoms here.

The government 'gets entangled' in the lives of it's citizens all the time, that's kind of the whole purpose of it. The oly solution to that is total anarchy, which if you honestly support then you're more childish then I could ever imagine.

And as for the whole 'parenting' and 'babysitting' bit, listen, the government protecting it's citizens is kind of the whole point of government in the first place. That's not the same thing though as 'parenting'. Police work isn't 'parenting', the military isn't 'parenting', and insuring people's healthcare isn't 'parenting' either. And at the end of the day, regardless of whatever slanderous remarks you make, the studies and statistics are clear. It works, whether you like it or not.

Quote

Besides, show me a government program that doesn't squander money.

(whoops, forgot to quote this last part so have to edit this in)

I'd say that depends on what you consider a worthy cause. If you don't think providing people with basic healthcare is a worthy cause, then in your eyes I suppose it is 'squandering' money. As for me, I actually care about the lives of my fellow citizens, rich and poor, so I do find it a worthy cause to get behind.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Aquila King
Forgot to add the last quote.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 08/06/2018 at 10:52 AM, Aquila King said:

My 'snide little comment' was based on real-world facts:

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why-homeless-people-dont-just-get-a-job

It's facts that shoot your argument in the foot. And as for 'plugging my ears', I'd say it at least helps to drown out your bulls**t.

Be graceful in defeat, as Hils said, when they go low - go high.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Incidentally, the irrational is understandable but not endorsable, in effect yuo can comprehend why someone did something irrational but not understand how we ourselves would end up doing something similar, the ability to comprehend something done by someone else, even something irrational is called “empathy”. It’s the incomprehensible that you can’t understand - like the previous paragraph I wrote, a load of arrant, incomprehensible flibblegobble.

[Aquila King]

7 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Be graceful in defeat, as Hils said, when they go low - go high.

I have no clue what you're talking about dude.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I have no clue what you're talking about dude.

I’m saying that in this case, on that particular subject, you’re wrong. And advising you to not double down on your wrongness by continuing the argument.