53
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 10:06 pm
@mysteryman,
But you still haven't said what you will do if you lose the gamble.

Will you refuse to go to the hospital? What if you are forced to go?

At least with my gamble, I know what it means. The government will pay or they won't but there isn't a back door way to make the government pay after I said they won't like there is in your gamble.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 10:22 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Will you refuse to go to the hospital? What if you are forced to go?


The only way you can be forced to go is if you are unconcious.
No, I wont refuse to go if its needed, but I will pay my bill, instead of expecting you to do it.

Based on what you are saying, you seem to think that nobody can pay their own bills and that everyone has to rely on the govt to pay their bills for them.

Believe it or not, but many people have the financial ability to pay their own bills without govt help.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 10:31 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I understand that, and I am not asking for sympathy.
It happened because of circumstances that I wont go in to, but suffice it to say it was because of my first wifes medical problems.

I guess my big concern is where will it stop.
Will you next try to get reform of some kind for people that go bankrupt because they took out a mortgage they new they couldnt afford?
Or for those that bought a car they couldnt afford?


It's just not the same, b/c you can make choices about your car or your house. You can lose either, and take the bus or live in a smaller home or move in with your Brother in law. Your health is different; it's fair to say that you can't live without it, and as you lose it, you will drag down every single person you love, your small business, people who rely upon you. It has a big ripple effect.

Quote:
I guess I am wondering if the time will come when people are no longer responsible for their own lives and the decisions they make on their own.
I filed for bankruptcy because things got out of control, and yes I know that happens to even the best of people.
But if you make it so that there are no consequences to people for the decisions they make, what will stop people from going completely nuts with their own finances, knowing that the govt will bail them out.

Its not what you are doing now, its where will it end that concerns me.


I don't want there to be no consequences for failure, I just don't want to put people in situations which are no good for society as a whole. It does me no good to save a little bit of money on taxes, if your productivity is screwed - due to your ex-wife's illness, not even your own!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 10:40 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
You are gambling MM. The odds may be 8-1 in your favor, but how will you pay up if you lose? Or will you expect the government to help you out after you promised they wouldn't have to?


Yes, I am gambling, I acknowledge that.
BUT, you and everyone else are gambling also.
How do you know that the govt will pay your bills?
How do you know that the money will be there for you if you get a chronic or longterm illness.


I know they will pay the bills, to the exact same amount I know that private insurance will pay the bills. But with more control through the representative process. If your private health insurance decides not to pay, you're simply fucked. This doesn't change no matter what system of administration we are under.

The US Government is, to the best of my knowledge, the longest-lasting source of security in the world. They are what we call a safe bet.

Quote:
I can put the money in a simple savings account in my bank and get a better return then the govt gets.
No matter what you do, its a gamble.


Unless the bank folds, in which case, you have nothing.

Unless, however, you are willing to rely on the government - again - to protect your investment. You can't escape relying on them if you wish your money to accrue interest.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 06:49 am
@mysteryman,
MM,

You still won't answer the question.

IF you lose the bet and can NOT pay the bills, what guarantee will you make that you won't use the government services available to those that can't pay that the rest of us are paying for but you want to opt out of?

Your bet isn't much of a bet if you want your money back but won't make some guarantee to refuse the services if you lose your bet. How do you propose to enforce your guarantee? Do you think we as a society should make it possible for you to take your money out and then pass a law saying you can get no medical treatment without paying first? If you can't pay then no treatment?

Basically, you are saying, I don't want to pay for others but I don't have a plan if I lose and I don't want to create consequences for myself.

Quote:
Based on what you are saying, you seem to think that nobody can pay their own bills and that everyone has to rely on the govt to pay their bills for them.
I said nothing of the sort and no one could possibly read that into what I said. I said the odds were in your favor but you could still lose the bet.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:04 am
@parados,
Quote:
You still won't answer the question.

IF you lose the bet and can NOT pay the bills, what guarantee will you make that you won't use the government services available to those that can't pay that the rest of us are paying for but you want to opt out of?


I make no guarantee about anything, especially when you ask a hypothetical question that has no answer.

The best I can do is say that AS OF RIGHT NOW, I have no need to rely on the govt to pay my bills and I dont want them to be involved in how I pay my bills.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:19 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
I make no guarantee about anything, especially when you ask a hypothetical question that has no answer.


Which is precisely why you don't get to "opt out" and saying you want to do so while not answering the hypothetical shows you aren't willing to think it through. You want to have it all without thinking about the consequences.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:30 am
@parados,
The question you asked is akin to the "Have you stopped beating your wife" type of question.
It cant be answered because there is no right answer.

No matter how I answer, you are prepared to argue.
I am not, so I wont answer, because I cant answer a hypothetical question.
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:41 am
@ican711nm,
ican -- there's no question the system is broken. I think it's broken beyond repair and that we need to completely scrap the current model and start over. That's not politically popular so it's not going to happen. Funds historically taken from payroll deductions have been used for the general fund and they are GONE. We can stop whining about it and accept it as we look to where we go from here or we can stomp our feet, pout, point fingers and cry without making any significant changes. Shuffling in a bunch of Republicans won't make a difference. We didn't get to where we are because of the Dems and we won't get out of it because of the Repubs.

Folks were told they were supporting the needs of the elderly of the time while banking for their own needs later on. That was a lie. The sooner we accept that fact and look forward the sooner we can stop trying to tweak a broken system and start again from scratch.

The reality is that there ARE NO FUNDS to support an aging demographic. The numbers simply aren't there. Our children can't get jobs to support themselves and are returning home to live with their parents after college in record numbers. The number of elderly Americans is skyrocketing and life expectancy is skyrocketing along with it. The longer we pussy foot around the issue of the aging demographic and the cost of keeping someone alive for a few extra months the longer we'll be adding to the problem not fixing it.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative problem. It's an American problem and unless we can begin to agree that there IS a problem that affects us all we can't begin to work towards a meaningful solution.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 07:55 am
@parados,
Quote:
Are you willing to commit suicide if you find yourself broke?


Are you?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 08:29 am
@mysteryman,
No, it isn't a "Have you stopped beating your wife" type question.

You proposed that you wanted to not pay into SS and Medicare. I asked if you were really prepared to accept the consequences. If you are, then I am more than willing to say, go ahead. But only if you really are ready to accept them. You have avoided the consequences at every step of this conversation.

Not paying in leaves you vulnerable on at least 3 fronts. You can become sick and not be able to pay for the continuing treatment, you can outlive your savings, or you can lose your savings because of fraud, economic downturn, bad luck, etc. You want to take that risk. I only asked what you are willing to do to make sure that society doesn't have to take care of you if any of those things happen.

It's an easy question to answer MM. Are you willing like some native Americans to wander off into the woods to die rather than be a burden to society? Then if you don't do that, are you willing to give the society you don't want to pay for the power to force you to walk off into the woods?

This is nothing more then a question of personal responsibility MM. You want to be personally responsible but you don't seem to want to think it through to the possible end.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 08:30 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Are you willing to commit suicide if you find yourself broke?


Are you?

I am not the one that proposed not paying into a system that would take care of me if I was to meet that misfortune.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 08:35 am
@parados,
parados, mm has the habit of asking juvenile questions that are non sequitur and irritating, so I put him on Ignore.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 09:58 am
@Cycloptichorn,
None of the AAA Corporate Bonds I invested in went bankrupt. And I don't even have a crystal ball to tell me which ones are "bullshit" and which ones are reliable investments.

Although I didn't mention them, lots of different Municipal Bonds are also good investments..
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 09:59 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

...Catastrophic illnesses did bankrupt some people as they do now, but as bad as it is, bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen to somebody. ...


right! a little salt in the wound is good for ya!.


DTOM, I was trying to think and I think over my lifetime I have had five close friends/relatives who have filed bankruptcy. One was due to medical costs; three due to failed businesses; one due to irresponsible speculation. Under bankruptcy protection all five have been able to dig themselves out of their respective financial holes and, from all appearances, managed to live reasonably satisfying lives. I at least one has repaid every cent he owed as a personal principle of the right thing to do.

So is it our responsibility to prevent all business owners from incurring financial problems due to business failures? Is it our responsibility to prevent people from irresponsible or stupid choices? Should we all be paying a sizable chunk of our income or savings into such a pool to help people out who run into such problems? And if you say no, we cannot protect everybody from such events, then why is bankruptcy from catastrophic medical costs any worse than the others? Isn't it enough that bankruptcy laws themselves allow people to survive who otherwise might wind up with no means at all to support themselves?

We can't protect everybody from everything, and who among us is wise enough or capable enough to decide that one misfortune is worse than another when the net effect is the same?

Even JPB, who really is one of our more astute members, acknowledges that the existing systems are broke. They have not met the grandiose (and humane) expectations that existed when they were enacted. I am not as pessimistic as her, however, that we just have to throw up our hands and say 'oh well' we're screwed and there's nothing to be done about it now. I think what has gradually and incrementally been imposed on us can be gradually and incrementally unimposed--we can gradually back out of it so as to create as little pain and suffering as possible--while we replace it with something sustainable. That system may have some natural risks built into it, yes, but little in life, even that which is most effective, does not involve some risk.

I can't agree to another enormous government entitlement program to 'fix' healthcare which can only be expected to produce the same results as all the others. As I have repeatedly said now, I do think there are a number of things the government can do to improve the existing system and help make it more affordable, but that involves policy and not attempting to provide healthcare to everybody.

(I also agree with JPB that our veterans put themselves at risk of severe injury and death in the service of their country, and lifetime medical services are part of their legitimate compensation in return for that service.)


Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 10:07 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Quote:
Before the federal government got involved, health care was affordable for most, even those who were uninsured. And nobody was denied health care then any more than they are now. For sure health care was more responsive and more humane before the government got involved.


So you're ready to give up your government provided health care, right?

You know... there are 72 million baby boomers becoming eligible for Social Security and Medicare over the next 13 years - they all paid into the system their entire working lives too, fox. Unfortunately there's no money in the till to support their needs. In addition to deficit spending, jobs are going overseas faster than we can count the numbers, measured unemployment is approaching 10% (real unemployment is closer to 20%), companies are beginning to eliminate benefit packages (including insurance), enforce furloughs, and with all of that you think you're entitled to financial and medical support from a reduced work force making lower wages in fewer jobs while complaining about government assistance to the needy. My, aren't you special?


I would give up my 'government provided healthcare' in a heartbeat if there was a reasonable alternative. Unfortunatley for all but the most affluent or the most poor senior citizens, there is no reasonable alternative mostly because of existing government programs. I would love to be able to consult a specialist about a particular problem I have without having to go through my private physician who insists on a whole lot of other stuff before she will refer me to the specialist.

But we are in agreement that there is no money for future retirees without demanding more and more of the existing work force. That is why I am so adament that, as we got into the current mess slowly and incrementally, we must begin now to slowly and incrementally begin to back out of the existing system while we replace it with something sustainable. Obviously we cannot just stop everything now before we have a better plan in place, and we cannot ethically break trust with promises already made without causing tremendous suffering and hardship for millions.

We MACs on this thread have been pointing out that the money is gone for some time now. And we use that as leverage to validate our conviction that there are better ways to do it. But given the government's track record so far, handing it license to establish still another enormous and unsustainable entitlement program is not the way to go.

We can do better.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 10:37 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

None of the AAA Corporate Bonds I invested in went bankrupt. And I don't even have a crystal ball to tell me which ones are "bullshit" and which ones are reliable investments.

Although I didn't mention them, lots of different Municipal Bonds are also good investments..


You got lucky. Others weren't so lucky. And if it wasn't for the government bailing out the banks and auto industry, millions would have seen their 'AAA' rated bonds disappear.

You need to think through this plan a little bit more.

Cycloptichorn
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 10:48 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I would give up my 'government provided healthcare' in a heartbeat if there was a reasonable alternative. Unfortunatley for all but the most affluent or the most poor senior citizens, there is no reasonable alternative mostly because of existing government programs. I would love to be able to consult a specialist about a particular problem I have without having to go through my private physician who insists on a whole lot of other stuff before she will refer me to the specialist.


Does this mean
a) you can't get private health insurance as a senior,
b) you can't just go to a specialist (or get a referral from your family doctor)?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 10:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
ican reaps the benefits of the bank bailouts but still hasn't made the connections between his bonds and their value.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 11:11 am
@ican711nm,
THE CHANGE THAT IS TRULY REQUIRED

Too many Americans have discovered how to vote themselves money from federal government tax revenues. They do this by electing candidates who ignore our Constitution and promise to vote and do vote these Americans money from federal government tax revenues. As a result we are losing our freedom and abundance to our envy and resentment, and ultimately to our dependency and bondage.

To stop and reverse this damnable trend, we must find and support candidates who shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom; for the politics of securing our God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are secured when we support our Constitution. Who among the future candidates will shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom and support of our Constitution? Indeed, who among all of us Americans will shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom and support of our Constitution?

For us to be true Americans, we must root for everyone to become the best they can be, and we must stop seeking to suppress those who accomplish more than we do. We are all made better off when any among us lawfully make themselves better off. We are all made worse off when any among us unlawfully make others worse off.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/22/2022 at 11:40:32