sure we are paying for air. the costs of taking the lead out of gasoline and the cost associated with fuel efficiency and polution control devices on autos to name a few.
The fact is, there are actually people who, when presented with the statement "medicine should be free", find the meaning obvious. I can't help that you aren't one of them.
I don't want to be one of them who are so closed-minded that they only see one way (namely, via aggression) to reach your stated ideal. I'm glad I don't see aggression as the "obvious" way to approach what is otherwise an admirable goal. Apparently you not only think that's the obvious way, but that using aggression is the preferable way to achieve your goals. Very evolved of you.
where does "medicine should be free" say anything about aggression?
I doesn't, which was exactly my point (in showing that there are other ways to make free health care a reality). But your response was that "the word free as used in this context means a cost that is assumed by the society at large and provided free of charge to the individual."
In which case, the aggression is in "a cost...assumed by the society at large". Unless you plan to get the money voluntarily, which you've shown no interest in, then the money would come by force and threat of force (i.e., aggression).
Are you saying Jesus was for a national health care system?
Jesus was absolutely for free health care.
Again, you're mixing up two very different things. A "national health care system" is not the same as "free health care". You didn't answer the question, crab. I'm quite sure Jesus was personally in favor of not charging for health care, and would gladly have worked to raise money or persuade providers to help those in need for free. I'm also quite sure he wouldn't have been in favor of enslaving doctors, or robbing Peter to pay Paul. I highly doubt Jesus would have jailed someone because they refused to provide free health care, nor because they refused to pay for someone else's health care.
which you've shown no interest in, then the money would come by force and threat of force (i.e., aggression).
so, taxes are aggression in your mind.
not in mine.
people should want to help other people. Aggression should not be a part of it.
Remember what I said...Medicine shouldbe free
A "national health care system" is not the same as "free health care"
sure, remove it's context and no, they aren't the same. But in the context I was using (free to the individual, provided by the whole), it is the same principle.
nothing is "the same" as anything else for that matter...if you want to pick apart semantics regardless of context. I can do that. Your saying that something isn't the same as something else is redundant and moot. Nothing is the same as something else. See? I can do it too....wheee!
if you want to talk about semantics outside of context, great, I can do that.
I'm also quite sure he wouldn't have been in favor of enslaving doctors, or robbing Peter to pay Paul
again, where did I say anything about forcing people to do anything?
he was in favor of helping people...there is no force involved in that.
When I say "medicine should be free", I am saying that as a society, we should help people....and being in faver of this in no way means I'm in favor of forcing anything, regardless of your attempts to say I am.
I couldn't agree with you more. However, somehow you don't see the threat of arrest and jailtime as aggression.
Remember what I said...Medicine shouldbe free  Â
I know what you said, and I applauded that ideal. But stolen medicine, or medicine paid for with stolen money, is not free.
again, where did I say anything about forcing people to do anything?
I figured anyone with an ounce of sense would have known that when you said "society as a whole" you meant "paid for via taxation". Taxation, being not voluntary, is mandatory. Mandatory = forced.
I brought up other ways that medicine could be free, and you poo-poohed them as obviously not what you were talking about.
I doesn't, which was exactly my point (in showing that there are other ways to make free health care a reality). But your response was that "the word free as used in this context means a cost that is assumed by the society at large and provided free of charge to the individual."
In which case, the aggression is in "a cost...assumed by the society at large". Unless you plan to get the money voluntarily, which you've shown no interest in, then the money would come by force and threat of force (i.e., aggression).
I thought I explained all this six months agoto you:
Yes, we are a nation of laws. Most of us want it that way, Lance. The setting and enforcement of laws is a legitimate function of government.But when the monied interests get the laws written for their sole benefit, then what is being "defiled" is not captialism (pthw!) -- it is something far more sacred than capitalism could ever hope to be, it is "government of, by and for the people." People have given their lives for this.
First, you refer to law as force, and then you confuse forcewith violence. MLK was non-violent, but he wanted school and lunch-counter desegregation, and he got them -- through government -- and by, if you will, "force." The South did not go willingly into desegregation.
to the extent that laws control the parameters of our behavior, these interest groups are indeed "trying to control" people. MADD is trying to use government to control drinking while driving. The Sierra Club is trying to use government to control certain aspects of corporate behavior. Yes, anytime we protect our interests from destruction by others, we are "controlling" other people. So we are all controlling and controlled to some extent.
Damn Crabby, you are making me post this ;-) just a poem and a note I wrote a few monthes ago. I usually don't post my poetry in such an open place, but the phrase "us vs. them" keeps popping up everywhere, so here goes...
Us Vs. Them
Its Us vs. Them In the fight for whats right What side do you choose The darkness or light?
There’s no in between There’s no shades of grey It’s black and white, baby, And there’s just one right way!
The lines have been drawn And been crossed once again The stage has been set To attack and defend.
But what of the cost? What of the conclusion? What will be lost To find no solution?
note: I am sick of the “us vs. them” mindset! Its everywhere from the worldwide level (such as war) to the local level (such as gangs), from religious to racial to political to personal, starting from the dawn of man, continuing today. When is humanity going to finally set aside its fear of differences and realize that “us and them” is really “we”, and learn to work together for the benefit of all?
we achieve things as a group Things can be achieved as a group. Some things can be achieved individually.
so, you think you should be paying for the air and the water too? I pay my water bill every month.
Bill Fold, I wasn't speaking about veterans in regards to health care. That's a separate issue.
Crabgrass, I've never owned a slave.
I pay my water bill every month.
Trust me, someday we'll be paying for air as well. We probably are already via some sort of tax.
sure we are paying for air. the costs of taking the lead out of gasoline and the cost associated with fuel efficiency and polution control devices on autos to name a few.
I don't know where you get hate in any of this.
I'm simply stating what I believe to be the facts.
name one thing you have ever achieved alone.
just one.
I don't want to be one of them who are so closed-minded that they only see one way (namely, via aggression) to reach your stated ideal. I'm glad I don't see aggression as the "obvious" way to approach what is otherwise an admirable goal. Apparently you not only think that's the obvious way, but that using aggression is the preferable way to achieve your goals. Very evolved of you.
the only attitude of hate here is yours...
that's the only hate here
aggression?
where does "medicine should be free" say anything about aggression?
Jesus was absolutely for free health care.
now go wash someone's feet.
I doesn't, which was exactly my point (in showing that there are other ways to make free health care a reality). But your response was that "the word free as used in this context means a cost that is assumed by the society at large and provided free of charge to the individual."
In which case, the aggression is in "a cost...assumed by the society at large". Unless you plan to get the money voluntarily, which you've shown no interest in, then the money would come by force and threat of force (i.e., aggression).
Again, you're mixing up two very different things. A "national health care system" is not the same as "free health care". You didn't answer the question, crab. I'm quite sure Jesus was personally in favor of not charging for health care, and would gladly have worked to raise money or persuade providers to help those in need for free. I'm also quite sure he wouldn't have been in favor of enslaving doctors, or robbing Peter to pay Paul. I highly doubt Jesus would have jailed someone because they refused to provide free health care, nor because they refused to pay for someone else's health care.
so, taxes are aggression in your mind.
not in mine.
people should
want to help other people. Aggression should not be a part of it.
Remember what I said...Medicine shouldbe free
sure, remove it's context and no, they aren't the same. But in the context I was using (free to the individual, provided by the whole), it is the same principle.
nothing is "the same" as anything else for that matter...if you want to pick apart semantics regardless of context. I can do that. Your saying that something isn't the same as something else is redundant and moot. Nothing is the same as something else. See? I can do it too....wheee!
if you want to talk about semantics outside of context, great, I can do that.
again, where did I say anything about forcing people to do anything?
he was in favor of helping people...there is no force involved in that.
When I say "medicine should be free", I am saying that as a society, we should help people....and being in faver of this in no way means I'm in favor of forcing anything, regardless of your attempts to say I am.
all I'm really saying is that things that people need(not want, but need) shouldbe shared, which means neither sold nor stolen.
should.
Yes. That's why the IRS agents who collect them if you don't pay them carry guns.
Tell that to Irwin Schiff.
People do want to help other people.
I couldn't agree with you more. However, somehow you don't see the threat of arrest and jailtime as aggression.
I know what you said, and I applauded that ideal. But stolen medicine, or medicine paid for with stolen money, is not free.
I figured anyone with an ounce of sense would have known that when you said "society as a whole" you meant "paid for via taxation". Taxation, being not voluntary, is mandatory. Mandatory = forced.
I brought up other ways that medicine could be free, and you poo-poohed them as obviously not what you were talking about.
somehow, you don't see that I wasn't advocating anything like that.
and I still am NOT, despite your continued attempts to paste it onto what I am saying.
again, where did I say anything about "mandatory"?
actually, I never brought up ANY way it could be accomplished, you just assumed that I was saying we should force it on people.
uh...it was YOU who has assumed that I was saying it should be by force. I never said anything like that.
where did I say anything about stealing it?
Lance,
I thought I explained all this six months agoto you:
Now you are saying that law = force = aggression.
Crabgrass,
Thanks for the dance. Feel free to offer cogent solutions at your leisure.
you wouldn't haveto do anything
C'mon, crab, how will people receive free health care that isn't offered to them under a law that will require someone else to provide it?
if you are walking along and you come upon someone who needs help, do you help them or do you see if they will pay for your help?
Not that you're proposing anything specific.
I would do what I could to help, and if the person needed medical care I'd do what was necessary to see that he got it.
What's that got to do with free health care?
that IS free health care.
if you are walking along and you come upon someone who needs help, do you help them or do you see if they will pay for your help?
If it's remotely possible that I will end up paying with for it, I keep walking.
I've got enough of my own bills to pay and I don't expect anyone to pay them for me.
unfortunately, I don't think people have it in them to pare down "Us and Them" to simply "Us"
too bad.
Damn Crabby, you are making me post this ;-) just a poem and a note I wrote a few monthes ago. I usually don't post my poetry in such an open place, but the phrase "us vs. them" keeps popping up everywhere, so here goes...
Us Vs. Them
Its Us vs. Them
In the fight for whats right
What side do you choose
The darkness or light?
There’s no in between
There’s no shades of grey
It’s black and white, baby,
And there’s just one right way!
The lines have been drawn
And been crossed once again
The stage has been set
To attack and defend.
But what of the cost?
What of the conclusion?
What will be lost
To find no solution?
To us against them
We must seek resolution.
©
KAL 1-14-2003
3:10 pm
note: I am sick of the “us vs. them” mindset! Its everywhere from the worldwide level (such as war) to the local level (such as gangs), from religious to racial to political to personal, starting from the dawn of man, continuing today. When is humanity going to finally set aside its fear of differences and realize that “us and them” is really “we”, and learn to work together for the benefit of all?
Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of
life to everyone in the world, according the the UN?
A: 10%
kinda makes you think, huh?
crabgrass 3/16/03 8:02pm
That would be about 30 billion.
I wonder what they mean by "essentials" ?
that's about $40 billion, actually
I have no doubt that you do wonder.
unfortunately, I don't think people have it in them to pare down "Us and Them" to simply "Us"
Well Crabby, when you contribute to my bills, I'll contribute to your healthcare.
mine and yours
you can just walk on by...you aren't gonne get it.
No, not mine.
I don't need nor want anyone to pay for my healthcare.
That's my responsibility.
you will never get to "our"
am I to assume that you declined you employer's healthcare plan?
am I to assume that you declined you employer's healthcare plan?
Nice try, but that's far different from national healthcare.
It's called an employment benefit.
you will never get to "our"
So, where can I send you "our" bills?
and it's a benefit made possible by a group of people approaching the problem as "we" instead of "me"
it's not different than national (how about trying global?) health care in any significant way outside of scale.
still can't get that "I" and "you" out of it, can you.
it's not different than national (how about trying global?) health care in any significant way outside of scale.
It's completely different. The employer subsidizes the cost of health care insurance out of profits.
it's not different than national (how about trying global?) health care in any significant way outside of scale.
It's completely different.
still can't get that "I" and "you" out of it, can you.
So, when can the creditors expect to be paid for "Our" bills?
yea...so?
it's still a group of people using their collective resources to take care of each other. Not completely different at all.
now it's "we" and "them" (the creditors)
you aren't gonna get this, are you?
No, you're not gonna get it.
You say it's about "Us" unless it's "Them" that you're asked to pay for.
I'm not the hypocrite here.
it's still a group of people using their collective resources to take care of each other
Fiddle Faddle
It's about capitalistic employers, offering quality benefits, to attract quality employees, which in turn reflect to the bottom line.
you just don't get it...remove the idea of a "them" altogether.
LOL!
So when are you going to pay my bills?
we DO pay our bills, don't we?
Not if I'm paying them and you're not.
See, if you and I go to dinner and the bill is $100 dollars, logic would tell us we should both pay $50.
Well, that's not what happens. I pay the full $100 and am told by you what a great dinner "We" had.
To add insult to injury, before you came along I could get 2 filet mignon's for $50. Now I pay $100 to get liver & onions.
But I should be happy because everyone has a full belly and at least it's not pig testicle stew.
Or is it "We do this everywhere"? Hmmm...
I pay 'em too
WE should pay $100
but of course that just makes "we" "us" and the restaurant "them", doesn't it?
you still don't understand the idea here.
it's all about you, isn't it?