Responsible for 90% of the problems in the world today. :lol:Doombrain wrote:Great BritishR00k wrote:britishDoombrain wrote:rubbish
Great Article
-
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
-
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
For one, the lack of accountability. There's no penalty if a program doesn't work. The political solution is to throw more money at it.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Fender,
What is it about government that makes it incapable of delivering services effectively?
A short read on the case for universal medicine for your consideration.
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_ ... states.htm
Interesting read. Some of the problems highlighted by that article are actually being caused by too much government intervention.
A couple of counter points, or other perspectives. The first one is a really good point. We really don't have a choice in health care. Changing the tax code would give people much more freedom and encourage competition in the marketplace.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-11-99.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3057
I support a lot of free-market ideas, but you have to admit that businesses in the states, especially large ones that handle lots of money - are just as corrupt and unaccountable as the federal government at this stage.
Even if Ken Lay were to get 50 years in federal, fuck-me-in-the-ass prison (which he never will), he still defrauded millions of people, not only of their stock holdings, but also of their entire retirement accounts.
We would have to make some severe reforms for corporations in this country -- and I'm still not sure I would trust them to handle all my healthcare. Not to mention the fact that, businesses being private, it would be much easier for them to refuse care to someone than it would for a public entity.
Even if Ken Lay were to get 50 years in federal, fuck-me-in-the-ass prison (which he never will), he still defrauded millions of people, not only of their stock holdings, but also of their entire retirement accounts.
We would have to make some severe reforms for corporations in this country -- and I'm still not sure I would trust them to handle all my healthcare. Not to mention the fact that, businesses being private, it would be much easier for them to refuse care to someone than it would for a public entity.
:icon14:Fender wrote: As soon as the gov't started handing out money to people, they started expecting it. Now they feel they deserve it.
Freak, if you're going to try to make a case, throw out some information like Fender did. Rhetoric doesn't get you anywhere unless you're talking to the ones with their hands out.
-
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
People won't be living to 80 in 2050, or whatever numbers they were bouncing around. SS may fail quicker than people anticipate. While Bush is a douche, I'm not going to ride the bandwagon on this one. SS is in trouble.
I haven't read all of the Fender and R00k posts yet. Just wanted to chime in.
I haven't read all of the Fender and R00k posts yet. Just wanted to chime in.
[url=http://www.marxists.org/][img]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3050/avatarmy7.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1736/leninzbp5.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1076/modulestalinat6.jpg[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/9239/cheds1.jpg[/img][/url]