Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through June 16, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru January 2003 » The Monkey Hole » Wanna know what pisses me off? » Archive through June 16, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Nolamour
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 11:14 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

True,

It's not a bad idea...The problem is, Will they take the help? Why would they want to take the help if they can just keep doing what they're doing and receive money? Education is the hardest part. As I've stated in other threads, You can't educate if you can't discipline. That's a huge problem where I come from. Those abusing the system are ignorant and don't think they need help. Hmmm, is forced counciling a violation of civil rights? It's a tough one.
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 10:35 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

There's that annoying personal responsibility thing again. Unlike China, we can't do the forced sterilization thing. That would violate their civil rights.

By the way, most of Dubya's policy (at least what I've seen) is about encouraging marriage and also providing relationship counseling. Not a BAD idea, as long as it's not the ONLY idea.
Nolamour
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 8:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Nas,

I agree with the educational help to get off of welfare...that would help. Although, I see everyday what happens with those that take advantage of the system. There are unmarried women over here having more and more children just to get more money.

It's sad and I have heard tape recorded testimony of a very demanding woman in front of a judge stating: I got 8 kids, what are you going to do about it? Like it's our responsibility to support her.

As this is the first I've heard about Bush's idea on the subject, I'd like to hear more...I can probably just look it up online.
Nascentvirion
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 8:06 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

What is Pres Bush's deal with welfare ? I thought I heard he wanted all future applicants to be married before providing welfare care. If this is true and this does happen. Our Legal system will be even more clogged than it all ready is. Only with people getting married for the sake of welfare support. What is going through his brain ? He should try providing educational funding so people can get off of welfare instead of just sticking a moral band aid over the situation and turning his head. All though I dont know if that is what he is trying to do with the welfare system.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

blackjack

>Um, that's hardly a germane example. I'm talking about a complete and well-designed system for all citizens, not something shoddily and reluctantly hashed together with insufficient funds.

Not germane? Ok, please name for me a US government program which is not shoddily and reluctantly hashed together with insufficient funds?

Even when we fund things properly the government still has ways to fuck it up. The money quickly goes into an expanding buracuracy, which serves only it's masters.

I have German relatives, they buy suplemental insurance to augment their national socialist healthcare system. Now come on! They pay and then they get to pay again.

I work on medical equipment for a living. I took a business trip to Argentina once to repair some equipment at a private hospital there. They also have socialized medicine there. Professionals in Argentina form associations where they can come together and build hospitals for themselves. The hospital I worked at was one for the police. Can you imagine. Their government healthcare is so bad they have to build their own hospitals.

Look at the school system for God sakes! Ok, in some places it's pretty good. Other places (New Orleans for instance) it's terrible. So bad in fact that people who can afford it send their kids to private schools. No other option. You can't quit paying and find something else if you don't like it. You're just stuck, and if you can't afford to pay twice, then you are just fucked.

Yeah, sign me up for another government fucking! I just can't wait!
_Blackjack
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 6:03 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Good God man, have you ever been to a VA hospital?




Um, that's hardly a germane example. I'm talking about a complete and well-designed system for all citizens, not something shoddily and reluctantly hashed together with insufficient funds. Try a Danish hospital. Or a Luxembourgean one.


Quote:

You sir are nuts!



Yup, me and EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH.

Listen. Australia spends less tax money, per capita, on health care than the US, and yet manages to provide care for everyone. Our attempts to AVOID socialized medicine are costing us more than it would to just give up the rhetoric and do what THE REST OF THE WORLD has been doing for 50 years.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 5:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Sorry I just wanted an excuse to post the dude with the bong.

I really don't want to start on organized religion.

I am a christion believer in God, but as Robin Williams once said in some movie or other, "God sacres me when you get him indoors."

What you choose to believe is your own business so long as you don't push it on me or try to force me to stop believing the way that I do... Or blow up the World Trade Center.

MD
Nolamour
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 5:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

MMMMMMM....

Soy and plankton products...yet another bad sci-fi movie from the 1970's? Don't be fooled.

Heston Rules in Soylent Green! - film-noir fashion. I guess the NRA would be a good subject after religion is done. ;-)
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 5:21 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I have one word:

"EEEEEEK!"

But that must be coupled with a phrase:

"invaluable tool for social control"

Like government, organized religion is necessary given the sorry sleazy selfish sh*theaded state of the human race.

Part I:

The average Joe (among the sheeple) needs someone to tell him what to do and think and how to behave. He lacks his own internal ethical compass, and so requires rules and carrots and sticks to keep him from killing a neighbor because the neighbor has sprinkles on HIS ice cream cone, and Joe does not. Organized religion often provides this when "Man's Laws" fail.

Part II:

Joe, left to his own devices, might be friends with people of other religions, ethnicities, socioeconomic groups, etc. Religion is one of many barbed-wire fences used to divide the sheeple into distinct herds. These herds can then war with one another instead of realizing how they're all getting screwed by the Establishment. (See my profile for a quote about getting screwed.)

Part III:

Religion provides easy answers for all of Joe's questions. It's much easier to listen to what Shepherd Fred says (or Shepherd John Paul, or Shepherd Osama, or Shepherd Dalai Lama, pick your Shepherd) than to think for himself.

Trainer sez:

Drive the sheeple into the slaughterhouse and be done with 'em! SOYLENT GREEN FOR ALL!!!

I'll take mine medium rare, please. Can I get some sweet potatoes with that? Thanks!

(Of course, we'll keep SOME sheeple around. First of all, we can't eat them all at one sitting. Second, SOMEBODY has to do all those jobs we don't want!)
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 4:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yippee,

We finally agree.

Now how about organized regligion?

pope
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 4:35 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I agree, but I don't believe that makes me a right-wing extremist.

For example, libertarians (more anti-government than the average right-wing extremist) would be thrilled to remove all environmental regulations and trade regulations. "The people," who would have perfect knowledge, of course, would only buy from those companies that don't pollute, thereby preventing pollution.

We tried that, remember Standard Oil? GE dumping PCBs into the Hudson? Love Canal? :)

That plan also assumes that the average Joe in Nevada will give half a poo about Corporation X dumping toxic waste all over Massachusetts, or draining half of the Everglades.

I view government as the unfortunate necessity to put ever so slight brakes on unbridled greed and selfishness. It's not "evil," it's an absolute necessity given the state of the human race.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 4:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

traineraz

>"The state already has dominion over people's personal lives.


You get no argument from me on that one. Governments are evil and should be feared.

Sadly it is necessary to have governments in order to keep the peace and protect the country. Government power should be limitied to those things for which there is no alternative besides government.

If you believe that you can join me as a right wing extremist.
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 4:19 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Giving the state dominion over people's personal lives requires that the individual no longer has control, and that in my opinion is quite evil.




The state already has dominion over people's personal lives.

As long as they can control what you want and know (via the media), they can control what you consider to be possibilities.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 4:11 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

traineraz

>"I said nothing about such things being manageable, or realistic, just not being "evil."

If it's neither managable or realistic, why are we even discussing it?

There's nothing evil about wanting people to behave themselves. It's in the execution of your proposed changes to the healthcare system that I had a problem with.

The only way to execute a plan where a person must reform in order for them to recieve health care (that they must continue to pay for btw), would requre constant observation of that person. The burden of proof would be on the patient rather than the state. Giving the state dominion over people's personal lives requires that the individual no longer has control, and that in my opinion is quite evil.
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 3:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I said nothing about such things being manageable, or realistic, just not being "evil."

I agree that any attempt to force people to be responsible for themselves will fail, as it is not possible to enforce. However, expecting people to voluntarily TAKE responsibility, while obviously more than our culture will support, is far from "evil." Having consequences for those who refuse to take responsibility is also, in my opinion, far from "evil."

It's more of a "what should be" versus "what is" situation. "What is," IS. "What should be," is opinion.

In my opinion, "What should be" is people taking responsibility for their own actions. "What is" is a culture which tells everyone that someone else will clean up their mess, whether the one being told is the average citizen or the average polluting corporation.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 3:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

traineraz,

>Which is better? Fixing the problem and giving you one chance to straighten up and fly right, or waiting until it's too late to fix the problem anyway?

How about treating people with respect and diginity? This doesn't have to be an evil or greater evil proposition.

Insurance is about risk. You get a large group of people who pay into a pot, some get very expensive illness some die quickly and cheaply. The people who die quickly pay for the healthcare of the people who linger. Even out the risks correctly, and nobody has to pay to much. It's not that difficult.

In the case of the poor fellow with the heart problem. What would have happened if he had gone ahead and eaten right, and gotten the same return of the blockage. (some people are just more prone to this than others) Would he be forced to prove his dining habits before some court?

What if this same guy had lived but later come down with colon cancer? Could you make a case that his bad diet contributed to that as well?

The healthcare you advocate would be impossible to manage fairly, would be extremely intrusive, and last but not least EVIL.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Nolamour,

Holy shit is right!

It's funny that I've never checked out their premium brands. I only look at the cheap stuff. I can't afford to buy a box of the high end brands. The best I do is to treat myself to a single once in a while.

I did pick up a few Cubans while I was in Germany a month ago. They are sitting in my humidor waiting for the right occasion.

Thanks for the site, I placed an order with them a little while ago. :-)
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Do you see how evil that is? How intrusive? What right does the government have to tell anyone what or how to eat? Just because someone has an illness, they loose their freedoms?



I don't see it as evil or intrusive at all. I see it as perfectly appropriate. I see no loss of freedom here, unless it's loss of the freedom to take no responsibility for oneself at all, and expect a free ride from others.

Some American HMOs take a different approach. They just try to refuse to approve the care long enough for it to be too late when you get it. It's their usual approach with cancer. They hope you'll die before you cost them too much money.

Which is better? Fixing the problem and giving you one chance to straighten up and fly right, or waiting until it's too late to fix the problem anyway?
Nolamour
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Holy Shit...Morgan,

Check out the price on the Partagas 150 box on the site you posted. This was one of the best cigars I've every had. About 2 years ago, I saw a price of $45 for ONE of these puppies. I can't believe they are still selling. This is for the toomuchmoneyitis people or whatever they're called.
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Does that mean we get to raise the insurance rates or deny healthcare to Gay people, or people who engage in risky sexual behavior?




Ever look around on the net, MD? While it's far from the majority, there are quite a number of gay men who openly search for unprotected sex with strangers. (see www.barebackcity.com, www.barebacksex.net, etc.) I know plenty of heterosexual men who still think AIDS is for fags, so they don't need condoms.

I very STRONGLY believe that people who go out "bug hunting" should indeed be forced to pay for their own drugs. If someone is going out intentionally looking to get himself sick so he "doesn't have to worry about getting it," or because "I don't want to live past 40 anyway (heard it a number of times)," WHY THE HELL should WE be paying for his $10-20K a year in drugs??

There's also a huge difference between smoking-related illness and sexually-transmitted illness. One incident can get you an STD. Could even be your husband/wife stepping out on you and bringing it home. Smoking one cigarette (or even one pack) doesn't give you lung cancer. If your wife passes through a cloud of cigarette smoke on her way home, or even takes a few puffs, you don't get sick.

Incidentally, health insurance rates for HIV+ people who are not covered under a company's insurance plan are through the roof.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:27 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

traineraz

Thanks for furthering my point about socialized medicine.

Do you see how evil that is? How intrusive? What right does the government have to tell anyone what or how to eat? Just because someone has an illness, they loose their freedoms?

Did the government offer to refund that poor man's taxes, since he was paying for healthcare coverage he never recieved?

Man, I need an absinthe to mellow me back out here.
Traineraz
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:17 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

I'd call it pretty damn beastly to judge if she "deserves" health care.




Guess I'm beastly then, just like the case I read about in the UK, I believe it was (maybe Canada . . . either way, a country with socialized medicine). It was in the news 5 or 6 years ago.

Some fellow had bypass surgery. He then refused to follow the doctor's diet and exercise recommendations, and a few years later needed it done again. The government told him to pay for it himself, that he didn't "deserve" health care because of his choices.

Oh, wait, they didn't say he didn't "deserve" health care, they said he didn't "deserve" to have it all paid for by taxpayers, since he was unwilling to take responsibility for his own health. Likewise, I never said anyone didn't deserve health care, just that I should not be forced to fork over the cash to pay for their self-destructive decisions.

I wouldn't expect to pay up if someone intentially torched his own house, or pushed her car off a cliff. I'm glad that US federal flood insurance finally requires that, when flooded out, the homeowner build someplace that isn't in a flood plain. Before that change, people were outraged when they realized tax money was subsidizing continual rebuilding in flood plains. I fail to see any reason not to be equally outraged when tax money subsidizes cleaning up the mess made by profitable tobacco companies.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

blackjack,

>"This whichwhatnow? I hate to break it to you, but us Lefties want to give healthcare to EVERYBODY, regardless of what they smoke."

Just when I get to feeling better, you have to go and bring up socialized medicine.

Good God man, have you ever been to a VA hospital? The vets call it the second chance to die for your country. Is that what you want American healthcare to become?

Pretty much everything the government does is either corrupt, innefficient, soulless, evil or all of the above. You want to give them more to do? You want them involved in life and death decisions to a greater extent than they already are?

You sir are nuts!
Nolamour
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Morgan David,

Well, The problem has always been that I spend WAY too much money on cigars. When I find one I like, it inevitably turns out to be the most expensive one in the humidor. That pisses me off. Although, my first cigar, many years ago, was a Nat Sherman, Hunter (Green label) - It wasn't that expensive. Maybe about 4 or 5 bucks. It's been a while since I've had one because they are not sold everywhere and I'm not sure of todays price. Some other less expensive are Arturo Fuente, Punch, and La Flor Dominicana.

You can check out my Men's Search Engine - HeyYouGuys.com - Go to the humidor section and they have a Sample pack for about $20 - Some good ones at a good price.

http://www.heyyouguys.com/hum.html - See Powerhouse Sampler.
Mogan_David
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

traineraz

Does that mean we get to raise the insurance rates or deny healthcare to Gay people, or people who engage in risky sexual behavior? Aids is an extremely expensive illness that can linger for decades before the victim finally dies. It's crule to assign blame for illness and death. It's going to happen to all of us eventually, whether we smoke or not. Have sex or not, we will all end up worm shit in the end. Dying is no one's fault, it's just a part of life, personal responsibility plays no role here whatsoever.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page