Dick Durbin: 'If You Think It's A Socialist Plot, Drop Out' Of Your Federal Heal

[Soul Crusher]

So getting  back on the point of this thread, a senator should be entitled to lifetime socialised healthcare after his first term?


The Luke

Hell no.  Its a rip off of the taxpayer.  I am completely against this abuse of taxpayers. 

[MCWAY]

So getting  back on the point of this thread, a senator should be entitled to lifetime socialised healthcare after his first term?


The Luke

That's not an entitlement. If that's part of a benefits package (something with which I certainly don't agree), that's STILL not "socialized".

Once again, your use of the word (referring to anyone employed by the government) is woefully inaccurate.

Neither 333386 nor I oppose anyone getting healthcare FROM HIS EMPLOYER (even if it's a government entity like DoD).

[The Luke]

Hell no.  Its a rip off of the taxpayer.  I am completely against this abuse of taxpayers. 

...except when it comes to soldiers, right?

That's not an entitlement. If that's part of a benefits package (something with which I certainly don't agree), that's STILL not "socialized".

Once again, your use of the word (referring to anyone employed by the government) is woefully inaccurate.

Neither 333386 nor I oppose anyone getting healthcare FROM HIS EMPLOYER (even if it's a government entity like DoD).

...dude, ANY service provided by or subsidised by the government via the taxpayer is, by definition, SOCIALISED. In fact, ANY service provided by the public for members of the public with public money is SOCIALISED.

For that matter, (technically) charities are socialised too. Check a dictionary.


The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

...except when it comes to soldiers, right?

...dude, ANY service provided by or subsidised by the government via the taxpayer is, by definition, SOCIALISED. In fact, ANY service provided by the public for members of the public with public money is SOCIALISED.

For that matter, (technically) charities are socialised too. Check a dictionary.


The Luke

Soldiers actually perform a service and place themselves in physical danger from day 1 and sign a committment for at least 4 years or more. 

These disgusting vermin on the senate are robbing us blind and should be on a volunteer basis at best. 

[MCWAY]

...except when it comes to soldiers, right?

...dude, ANY service provided by or subsidised by the government via the taxpayer is, by definition, SOCIALISED. In fact, ANY service provided by the public for members of the public with public money is SOCIALISED.

For that matter, (technically) charities are socialised too. Check a dictionary.


The Luke

Take your own advice. As long as you WORK for the government or a charity, you get benefits from that entity. That's NOT an entitlement. That's getting what you've EARNED!

Once that stops, SO DO THE BENEFITS (unless there's some form of compensation/severance package, as 333386 mentioned).



Your arguments aren't about who's the employer. It's about your feeble attempt to justify giving someone healthcare benefits, for simply having a pulse. People who don't work for DoD and never have AIN'T ENTITLED to TriCare, unless they're dependents of those who have/did (retired).

[The Luke]

Soldiers actually perform a service and place themselves in physical danger from day 1 and sign a committment for at least 4 years or more. 

Do the poor provide a service?

"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?

Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.

Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?


The Luke

[MCWAY]

Do the poor provide a service?

Nope, at least not one for which healthcare is a payment.

"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?

Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.

Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?


The Luke

NOPE!!

[The Luke]

People who don't work for DoD and never have AIN'T ENTITLED to TriCare, unless they're dependents of those who have/did (retired).

...so, fuck the orphans?

Socialised healthcare based on "who's your daddy", not based on merit? Seems a bit feudal to me.
But I suppose, isn't that the same way you guys decide who should be president?


The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

Do the poor provide a service?

"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?

Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.

Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?


The Luke

No, no one should get free anything.  If they want to do something to where these people get health care in return for service of some sort if they cant afford it I could see that.  

[The Luke]

NOPE!!

...no argument? Just an instinctual reflex?


The Luke

[Kazan]

Do the poor provide a service?

"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?

Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.

Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?


The Luke

It could also be argued people are poor becuase they have no marketable skills, should the guy flipping burgers at the local dennys make $50,000 a year? I guess in your world yes, in the real world you are paid for what you provide to your employer.

You are a typical lib, you think that the only reason anyone is rich is because they did it on the backs of the poor, not that they worked hard and actually earned it.

I am so tired of your stupid ass straw man arguments, always trying to take some moral high ground that doesn't exist.

[The Luke]

It could also be argued people are poor becuase they have no marketable skills, should the guy flipping burgers at the local dennys make $50,000 a year? I guess in your world yes, in the real world you are paid for what you provide to your employer.

...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.

The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.

Reality seems to be at odds with YOUR opinion, perhaps you should reconsider it?


The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.

The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.

Reality seems to be at odds with YOUR opinion, perhaps you should reconsider it?


The Luke

Who the hell are you to make that judgement? 

BTW - your beloved socialist countries are all on the brink of collapse due to massive debt problems and would have collapsed even sooner if they had to pay for national defense which we have provided them. 

[Kazan]

...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.

The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.

Reality seems to be at odds with YOUR opinion, perhaps you should reconsider it?


The Luke

Well maybe if you are talking about the Kennedy's ( worthless Irish girls just like you ).

Really they have best standard of living according to who? You, my standard of living is pretty damn good.

Perhaps you should reconsider posting anymore of your stupid bullshit, like I said tired of your weak ass straw man arguments.

More liberal BS all based on emotional response with no base in reality.

[The Luke]

BTW - your beloved socialist countries are all on the brink of collapse due to massive debt problems and would have collapsed even sooner if they had to pay for national defense which we have provided them. 

Why shouldn't America pay for it's occupation of these European countries?

...in fact, contrary to your assertions, the Scandinavian countries and Germany are in the BEST economic shape of all the European countries, and America isn't exactly a stable debt-free creditor nation.

Again, your reactionary emotional outbursts don't change facts... and facts seem to be at odds with YOUR opinion?


The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

Why shouldn't America pay for it's occupation of these European countries?

...in fact, contrary to your assertions, the Scandinavian countries and Germany are in the BEST economic shape of all the European countries, and America isn't exactly a stable debt-free creditor nation.

Again, your reactionary emotional outbursts don't change facts... and facts seem to be at odds with YOUR opinion?


The Luke

Do you want me to pull out a Debt to GDP chart and smack you down again? 

[Kazan]

Why shouldn't America pay for it's occupation of these European countries?

...in fact, contrary to your assertions, the Scandinavian countries and Germany are in the BEST economic shape of all the European countries, and America isn't exactly a stable debt-free creditor nation.

Again, your reactionary emotional outbursts don't change facts... and facts seem to be at odds with YOUR opinion?


The Luke

Yeah sure the US is occupying Germany, see how well the fucking economy does when half of it up and leaves with the US military.

[The Luke]

...I'll have to check in tomorrow guys, my GetBig is slowing down and it's pretty late here.

Remember to include America's GDP; government debt and private debt in that chart.

Be sure to have a congratulatory circle-jerk of self-reassuring posts to convincing yourselves you've won this argument too... after all, I did question your propaganda-derived worldview... using facts of all things.


The Luke
 

[Kazan]

Go fuck yourself ya stupid mick, maybe well get lucky and you'll get drunk enough tonight and blow your self up making bombs for the IRA.

[MCWAY]

...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.

The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.



The Luke

Tell that to the folks in Cuba and Venezuela.

[MCWAY]

...so, fuck the orphans?

Socialised healthcare based on "who's your daddy", not based on merit? Seems a bit feudal to me.
But I suppose, isn't that the same way you guys decide who should be president?


The Luke

What do orphans have to do with this silliness you keep spouting?

In case you missed it, many private companies that offer health insurance ALSO EXTEND THOSE BENEFITS, to the dependents of their employees. So, how is that any different than the dependents of active and retired military getting TriCare?

Once again, this has ZILCH to do with "socialized" healthcare. If you work for an employer, you get the benefits provided by that employer.

[The Luke]

What do orphans have to do with this silliness you keep spouting?

I realise, you suffer with cognitive dissonance, but you are actually asking a question and then answering yourself in the next line:

In case you missed it, many private companies that offer health insurance ALSO EXTEND THOSE BENEFITS, to the dependents of their employees. So, how is that any different than the dependents of active and retired military getting TriCare? Once again, this has ZILCH to do with "socialized" healthcare. If you work for an employer, you get the benefits provided by that employer.

...so if kids are covered by their parents, who covers orphans? See the fault in your thinking?

I know from some of the Religious Board threads that you are an Evangelical fundmetalist who believes children should suffer on behalf of their parents (presumably you were righteous enough even as a foetus to deserve decent parents yourself), and that you fervently support Yahweh killing cities full of children and babies to punish the sins of wayward parents... but it's 2010.

Your argument belongs in the Bronze Age. Sorry.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

I realise, you suffer with cognitive dissonance, but you are actually asking a question and then answering yourself in the next line:
...so if kids are covered by their parents, who covers orphans? See the fault in your thinking?

Fault in thinking that PARENTS should care for their own children? It appears you're the one doing the crack, here.

For those without parents, we have these things called orphanages. If they're run by the government, the government covers their care. If run by a private organization (i.e. a church), that organization covers their healthcare. Why are you asking such silly questions?

BTW, I don't see YOU, coughing up any cash to take care of any orphans. Yet, you want to dictate to others what they should do with their own money.


The point, of course, is that employers that offer health benefits usually allow for such benefits to cover dependents. And that's also true of the military. Active and retired members can extend their benefits to their spouses and children. That is NOT "socialized" healthcare.

I know from some of the Religious Board threads that you are an Evangelical fundmetalist who believes children should suffer on behalf of their parents (presumably you were righteous enough even as a foetus to deserve decent parents yourself), and that you fervently support Yahweh killing cities full of children and babies to punish the sins of wayward parents... but it's 2010.

So, instead, leave the babies to starve and die.  

Your argument belongs in the Bronze Age. Sorry.


The Luke

And yours belongs in a kindergarten class. First, in life, children pay for the sins of their parents. That's as true in 2010 A.D. as it was in 2010 B.C. You mentioned a 5-year-old crack baby. Guess what!! That child has afflictions BECAUSE OF THE SINS OF HIS MOTHER. Because Mama is strung out on crack, that kid is suffering from health problems (among other items).

That's how this sinful world is. Depending on how much authority you have, if you do something stupid, YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE who suffers for it. If you're a father, you know that firsthand. My kids will starve if I do something dumb that costs me my job and I can't pay the bills or the rent. ALL OF US are out on the street, not just me. But, NOBODY is obligated to take care of my family, simply because I screwed up.

Of course, my being a "fundamentalist" doesn't have a thing to do with your paper-thin arguments getting ripped to pieces. But, that's another tale.

[The Luke]

That's quite a dog-eat-dog Christianity you subscrie to McWay.
 


The Luke

[MCWAY]

That's quite a dog-eat-dog Christianity you subscrie to McWay.
 


The Luke

How are parents caring for their respective children and orphanges caring for the fatherless (and motherless) "dog-eat-dog"?

As I said, parents use their healthcare on their children. That's standard procedure. And there's little difference between a guy working for a corporation, getting benefits from his employer, and a serviceman getting TriCare from DoD.

All are based on their being EMPLOYED by those respective entitites, which does not make their healthcare "socialized".

Nothing in Christianity mandates that I care of someone's else children, when their parents are capable of doing so themselves, or that a government entity should force me to do so, via excessive taxation.