Yup. My life has been bad more than once, through choices I made, whether those choices were mistakes or not.

I got pregnant at 17. I was already working to help support my family (not for "fun" money like many teens), and KNEW another mouth to feed was going to be insanity. My family offered support, but I did what was best for my daughter, and myself, and chose adoption. How many people parent that can't afford to?

I ran up credit card debt in college. In my defense, nearly all of the debt was groceries. I had problems where I was told I had financial aid, and it fell through at the last minute. Since I'd already signed a lease, I had to stick out a year in a town out of state from where I'd grown up. I got a job, went to school full time, and worked more than 40 hours every week to pay for rent, school and food. Food was my LOWEST priority, and many days, my only meal was the one I got from the church down the street from me. I should have dropped out of school; instead, I failed everything and had more debt. So... when my lease was up, I DID drop out of school. I sacrificed my education for food in my stomach.

There ARE some situations where I'm more than happy to help someone get out of a bad spot they're in due to their choices---but they have to be doing as much as I am to get them out of that situation. Great example is a family I help. Mother, 2 kids. Mom is a recovering alcoholic and drug user, sober 3 years. She started her road to recovery when the father of the kids snapped one day and instead of hitting her like he usually did, he hit one of the kids. She packed them up and moved to a women's shelter and started the long road to recovery--so that she didn't lose her kids to him. She'd made some REALLY bad choices in her life, but she makes the choice every morning now to get up, stay sober, and earn enough to keep her family. She barely does it. She also has the unfortunate situation of having Crohn's disease (which is a pre-existing condition that will get you denied health care). She does everything she can herself, but sometimes it's not enough. I've sort of "adopted" them, and help them every time I have a chance--with money for bills, with food, with a place to go that's safe with no drugs or alcohol, with an ear to listen, hand me down clothing, etc. This is a woman who made SERIOUS mistakes in her life, and through NO fault of her own is being denied insurance.

So yes, some people can make mistakes and need a hand up. Giving them a hand up is NOT the same as giving them a hand OUT--and there are PLENTY of programs to help most people who need it.

The problem, phlanx, is that most people who make mistakes and get what they need ANYWAY don't learn from their mistakes--and therefore keep making them. Just look at the US Welfare system if you don't believe me.

Hello again, Elliot:

For a moment, let's pretend that I agree with you that we're serving everybody's medical needs. I don't, of course, but let's pretend. IF we ARE doing it, then we're not doing it very efficiently because we spend more to get less. That's simply a management problem.

Take ER's for example. I understand you have some experience there... ER's aren't for day to day treatment. They're too damn expensive for that. So, we should REFORM the system, if in no other way, so that ER's go back to being ER's, and people get their day to day treatment in a much more cost effective manner.

There's more, of course. But, as a right winger, you DO understand management, don't you?? If we did just that, how much do you think it'll save us?? How could you be against changing THAT?? Can't you say anything other than NO?? Guess not.

excon

Oh, sure, it happens all the time.

Now explain to me why I should be penalized for someone else's bad decisions by having MY MONEY taken away from me to pay for that person.

What bad decision did I make that I should be penalized? What action did I take that obligates me to that other person? What document did I sign that makes me financially obligated to someone else?

There's a word for being forced to work without compensation so that someone else will benefit from my labor. It's "slavery".

If I am forced to work so that the money I earn is taken away from me to pay for someone else's benefits, then I am a slave. Call it what you will, that is essentially what it is. Call it a "welfare program", call it "forced charity", call it "good citizenship", call it "responsibility to my fellow citizen", it is all the same thing. If I am forced to give up my hard-earned money to someone else without choice, I am a slave. We fought a war in this country to eliminate slavery.

I have no desire to be a slave.

You clearly do.

Elliot

Gordon Bennett Wolverine

As an econoimist I would have thought you would understand the basic rule of any government

YOU ARE GOING TO BE TAXED REGARDLESS!!

So it is not a question of if or how but how much

Hell, I understand that - I work hard for my money and yet I find the government takes money out in every direction so that somebody else can live on welfare, so this and that can be paid for - all of which I will never ever see the benefit from

DIRECTLY!!

Surely the point of having social reform is to ensure the masses are kept happy

Unhappy masses tend to riot, break laws, cause anarchy, and generally ruin any chance you have of earning a living

And then what - taxes have to be increased to keep law and order, WOULD you be happy to pay some of your hard earned cash then mate

You are a Citizen in a country, which will always make you a slave to the system whether you like or not mate, or do you break the laws and don't pay taxes?

Funny point : You had to go to war to get social reform to change so the benefits of the few were cared for, and yet here - we changed the law in a civilised manner within Parliament

And so your solution to "mismanagement" is to give the entire system over to the most inefficient, most wasteful, most poorly managed agency the world has ever seen... the US government.

This is the same US government that pays $500 for a hammer and $1200 for a toilet seat.

This is the same government that spends money during a recession to study the sexual habbits of field mice.

This is the same government that created Freddie Mac in order to create competition with Fannie Mae, even though both bodies are owned and regulated by the same people, and therefore there is no competition.

This is the same government that mysteriously "lost" $24.5 billion in 2003... they simply can't account for how the money was spent, so they wrote it off.

This is the same government that spent $100 million between 1997 and 2003 on 270,000 commercial airline tickets that were never used... and each of those tickets were fully REFUNDABLE, but refunds were never applied for. (In 27,000 cases, tickets were actually paid for TWICE.)

This is the same government... in fact the same Medicare system... that Inspector General Janet Renquist (DHHS) found in 2002 to have paid 8 TIMES what other agencies were paying for the same drugs, supplies and equipment.

This is who you want to turn our "mismanaged" health care system over to?

But getting more to the point than that... what makes you think that the system is being mismanaged at all?

We have been through the numbers... of the 46 million people that supposedly don't have insurance, roughly 10 million of them CHOOSE not to have health insurance, 12 million are illegal aliens not elligible for health insurance, and 10 million are people uninsured for less than 4 months at a time but generally have insurance at all other times. That leaves between 10 and 15 million people uninsured for extended periods. Or roughly 3% of the US population.

That means that the system we have is 97% efficient in providing health insurance. Where is the inefficiency? What government agency can improve on 97% efficiency in comletion of its assigned task?

So... in summation, you want to improve on 97% efficiency by handing the system over to the most inefficient agency every created in the history of mankind.

What a brilliant solution.

NOT!!

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Well, we were talking about ER's as an example... I don't know what happened to your right wing business acumen, but my four year old granddaughter can take ONE look at the ER's and surmise that there's some mismanagement going on.

You not so much, huh?

excon

First of all, yes, we are all taxed. As we should be. The government has to maintain roads, bridges and tunnels. The government has to maintian a communication system (mail, phones, internet). The government has to maintain a military and police force. The government has to maintain courts to enforce both criminal and civil law. It needs to maintain a jail system to punish those who violate criminal law.

All these things are accounted for in the Constitution.

But taxing people in order to give their money to someone else in the form of welfare or pork barrel spending?

Nuh uh. It ain't in the Constitution. It's pure Keynesian BS, which is in turn based on Marxism... the idea that government is the only body capable of taking care of man.

There is a value in government. It's value is exactly what I have said it is... the maintenance of a military, the maintenance of freedom of communication and travel, and the maintenance of an economic environment that is favorable to free trade.

Any role of government other than that HAS NO VALUE except to erode personal freedoms by limiting free choice and decreasing personal wealth.

What you are essentially telling me is that you have no faith in your fellow man. You don't believe that man can be charitable to his fellow man except when forced to do so by his government. You believe in the inherent "badness" of man and the inherent "goodness" of government.

I disagree. I have more faith in my fellow man than you do. I trust my fellow man to help help others when they are in need without being forced to do so by the government via taxes and welfare spending. And as I have pointed out before, Americans seem to be better at it than you Brits.

Perhaps that is why you need your government to intervene on your behalf and we don't. We actually do give more charity than you do... we can be trusted to do so without government intervention. You guys don't give as much charity so you need a government to force you to do it.

Elliot

Really?

I define efficiency as placing the most care where it will do the most good in the shortest amount of time possible within a specific department-wide budget without turning away a single patient. By that definition, excon, you are 100% wrong.

In my experience, ERs are some of the most efficient health care service providers around. They actually determine who goes first based on NEED, not based on some arbitrary event like who got there first or who is the most important or richest person in the room. It's called "triage medicine", and it works very well. The guy with the gunshot wound to the abdomen will ALWAYS get cared for before the guy with the splinter in his pinky. The guy with the major trauma from an MVA will go before the guy with the sniffles. The guy who is having the MI will go before the guy with a cold. That is an efficient method of distributing care based on immediate need.

So what you, a non-professional in health care see as "inefficient" I, as a volunteer EMT with 20 years of critical care experience, see as the height of efficiency in providing care.

Now... if you want to talk about inefficiencies in OTHER departments of a hospital, we can have that discussion. But not ERs. They are actually the MOST EFFICIENTLY RUN part of any health center or hospital due to the nature of trama and critical care medicine. And you will be hard pressed to find any system that is more efficiently run and gives more effective care than an ER.

And that is even in the state-run and county-run hospitals that I have worked in... with all the massive waste that takes place in any government agency, ERs are STILL the most efficient part of any hospital, by the definition I gave above.

Do you have a different definition of efficiency that applies to an ER?

More importantly, can you show me how the government can run an ER more efficiently than it is currently run?

I doubt it. But go ahead... give it a shot.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Remind me NOT to inquire about your right wing business acumen any more. What you said above, indicates that you NEVER had any...

So, you think a guy sitting around to get his cold treated by an emergency room doctor is the most efficient use of that doctors time, do you?? Dude! We can't talk about this anymore... Cause you and I ain't on the same planet...

excon

Actually it is an inefficient use of the PATIENT'S time. The Doctor is busy doing other things, like treating patients with greater immediate need. So yes, the doctor's time is being used efficiently. It is the PATIENT'S time that is being wasted.

But we weren't talking about the efficiency of the patient. We were talking about the efficiency of the ER. And the ER is VERY efficient.

Try again.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

So, having an emergency room doctor treat a guy with a cold is INEFFICIENT for the patient, but it's a GOOD use of the doctors time?? That's you story? You're going to stick with that, huh?

DUDE!

Patient inefficiency costs us HOW MUCH?? I didn't know that WE were the problem. DUDE!!

excon

You clearly can't understand what you have read.

It is an efficient use of the doctor's time because the doctor is treating patients on the basis of most urgent need. THAT is the definition of efficiency.

Patient inefficiency costs us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... which is why it isn't a problem. You are trying to manufacture an issue that doesn't exist.

You have yet to show how ERs are inefficient, and you have yet to show how government could do a better job of managing them. That's because you CAN'T and you know it.

Elliot

Don't worry excon, elliot is an economist who thinks paying taxes for services amounts to slavery

Elliot, your list didn't include social services which looks after others people kids paid for by you, or do you want to see what China or Romania did with their unwanted kids!

You haven't mentioned the refuse collection - surely you are more than capable of driving down to the refuse collection point instead of paying your government to do it

Road networks can be looked after by companies, so can rail and mail.

Telephone networks - nah you don't need a government for that either do you

You certainly don't need a government to run your jails

So the next step would be a privatised police force - because a company can look after that as well

You keep stating the one fact that you guys give more to charity than we do - WuHu, good for you, pat yourselves on the back

One question, how many wars has the US won?? (No offence to anybody serving or had served)

When your country comes even close to what we as a nation have achieved then please feel free to keep sounding it out

I wonder how much you will be giving to charity in a few generations when you are no longer a super power?

Elliot, you really are not living in this solar system

You missed the point . Those are all legitimate services of local governments . The mandates of the central Federal government in our system is few and delineated carefully in the articles of the Constitution.

The Constituition is not a fixed document

Where in the original text does it state, And every week your rubbish will be collected form your door. Your kids will be looked after if you can't look after them, we will lay telephone communications so everybody can talk to each

It doesn't, it is open to interpretation and change

And as I have said many times over, the War of Indpendence was about tyranny, about ruling elitism, and yet here people are saying, nobody is taking my position away from me - if people are hungary let them eat cake, wow everybody has moved on haven't they!

Hello again, Elliot:

Then tell me what I didn't understand... I understand perfectly what you said... The doctor is treating people efficiently, even though some of his time is spent on people who shouldn't be there in the first place...

Who wouldn't understand THAT cockamamy right wing business bull crap?? I mean, if a manager told a worker to pound nails into sand, and the worker diligently pounded those nails, that would, according to you, be an efficient use of the workers time, even though nobody needs nails pounded into sand??

Yessir. I understand perfectly. I doubt, however, that you'll understand me. That's cool. Those reading this will.

excon

Excon, I understand what you are trying to say

My final thought here is you just can't reason with stupidty

Have a good evening people

I didn't list that because it isn't provided for in the Constitution.

You're right, I missed that one, though it could be said to be part of maintenance of roads... but I'll grant you that one.

Yep... and most often, road repairs are contracted out to private companies. But it is STILL a government responsibility under the Constitution and therefore something that can legitimately be taxed for.

Actually not... the private companies handle it better than the government ever could. But it could be argued that it is a government responsibility.

I actually listed jails above... but as a matter of fact, the running of jails is often contracted out to private companies as well. But the government pays for it.

There are some counties that have such a system... police duties are contracted out to private individuals. Nevertheless, it is a government responsibility to do it, and the government pays for it.

Actually it goes to the heart of your point. You argued that you need the government to handle your charity work for you... you need the government to do all the benevolent work that your people don't do by themselves. We don't need the government to do that work for us because we give more charity voluntarily than you do.

Beginning with our national birth in 1776:

1) The Revolutionary War
2) The Shays Rebellion
3) The Whiskey Rebellion
4) The Quasi-War (against France)
5) The War of 1812 (aka The Second War of Independence)
6) The Mexican-American War
7) The Amercan Civil War (coincidentally was also lost that war)
8) The Spanish American War
9) The Banana Wars
10) World War I
11) World War II
13) The Korean War
14) The Cold War
15) Granada
16) The Gulf War
17) The Iraq War.

Please keep in mind that the only reason you don't speak German is because of US.

Deal with it.

That will depend on how much our government keeps taking from us in the name of "helping those less fortunate" as you advocate. But for now WE ARE a super power, both economically and militarily. I'm just trying to make sure we stay that way.

Again, deal with it.

Uh huh... you're the one dreaming of the USA no longer being a super power and utopian governments that keep everyone happy, healthy and care-free.

AND THAT is where you are wrong. It IS a fixed document.

It doesn't... that's a STATE responsibility, not a federal one.

Since when is that a government responsibility? It may be a nice thing for someone to do for you, but it isn't a government responsibility.

That IS listed... when it talks about maintaining roads and mail systems... which includes methods of communications. But the fact is that the telephone system is handled by private companies... formerly Bell Telephone, and now it's various "baby bells".

Interpretation, yes. That is what the Supreme Court is there for. But change? Only via Amendment.

You're right.

When we rebelled against King George, we did so because he was taxing us into oblivion, taking our assets, ostensibly for the good of the realm.

Today the government is trying to pass new laws that will tax us into oblivion and take away our assets, ostensibly for the good of the nation.

Not much has changed at all.

And your analysis of the reasons for the Revolution make it clear that you STILL don't know what it was about. It was about TAXATION without REPRESENTATION... it was about taking away the hard-earned assets of individuals without them having a say in the matter.

It had nothing to do with "elitism" or "position". In fact, the Founding Fathers were quite ready to name George Washington "King"... it was the system they knew and most understood. They LIKED monarchy, and would have been quite comfortable with it. They had no problem with the idea of a ruling elite. But they decided, after looking at history, that there had to be a better system that would prevent that much power from being in the hands of any one man... and from that concept came the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The point is that you misunderstand the nature of the Revolutionary War, why we broke away from you, and how we came to believe what we do about the role of government. You still think it was because of some sort of hate of monarchy and nobility in general. It wasn't. And when you can figure out what it REALLY was all about... freedom to keep what you earn, freedom to accumulate wealth, freedom to pursue our goals unmolested by government intervention... then you will understand why Conservatives feel as we do about the role of government.

But I doubt that you will get it. You don't see anything wrong with the government taking your money and giving it to others. Or keeping it for themselves.

Excon,

Well, for one thing you seem to think that "patient inefficiency", the fact that the patient has to wait around for a long time in an ER if his problem isn't emergent, is some sort of issue.

Second, you seem to think that a doctor who deals with patients who need less care AFTER dealing with patients who need more care is somehow an inefficient use of that doctor's time.

Third, you seem to think that the government is going to fix these inefficiencies... that somehow the patient won't have to wait so long, and that somehow the doctor's time will be more efficiently used.

You assume this despite the fact that everywhere nationalized health care has been tried, patient waits for care have INCREASED instead of decreasing... patients who used to wait for a few hours in an emergency room now wait weeks for an appointment with their doctor at his office.

You assume this despite the fact that in every place where it has been tried, doctors have become LESS efficient due to government intervention... a doctor who has met his quota for the day, week, month or year doesn't see any more patients, because he's not getting paid for more patients. He could have 3 more hours left to his shift, but he's not going to see any more patients that day, because he's met his quota. Whereas in the USA, doctors see patients until their shift is over, and then they usually stay overtime to make sure that the patients they STARTED seeing are cleared from the board before they go home.

So patient wait times become more inefficient, and doctors times are spent more inefficiently in a nationalized health care setting.

And fourth, you think that ERs are inefficient.

But YOU assume that nationalizing health care is going to make these things MORE efficient.

THAT is what you don't understand.

Elliot