I find this amusing, and oddly true

[Alyrium Denryle]

Did the concept of public education and a welfare state exist back in the late 18th century Nitram? No, neither of those concepts existed, so how could the Founding Fathers intend them? Wait.. they couldnt have.
Keyword in the sentence Nitram is General, meaning everyone. A road will help everyone in one way or the other, it hellps transport your mail etc etc.

A federal health insurance plan, would only help the poor, it would not generally help the wealthy or most of the middle class. And the cost would actually harm the ones picking up the tab, and may make them unable to pay for private insurance, and would thus increase the cost even further... Not exactly in everyones best interests now is it? General Welfare need not apply.

A small streamlined welfare system, as in, one completely redesigned from the current system, might be acceptable. It would depend on how it could be run.

though, with both you could avoid the constitutionality problem by not actually taxing. Both programs would have to be very very very small, but make "would you like to pay money into a health insurance plan provided by the federal government" as a checkmark on your tax forms. Have something similar for a welfare system. That way,the government doesnt actually 'tax' Hell, politicians would write the shit, they could even add a "think of the children" line at the bottom. It would be voluntary. Though, it would have to be seperate from the rest of the federal budget(bloodsuckers) and it would have to have its own balanced budget(as well as probably being a little more involved than a checkmark) but it would work, and it would be constitutional.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Basically it would be a government owned business without the socialist bit on outlawing the competition.

[SirNitram]

Did the concept of public education and a welfare state exist back in the late 18th century Nitram? No, neither of those concepts existed, so how could the Founding Fathers intend them? Wait.. they couldnt have.

Congratulations. However, you have yet to prove they meant the services you cited and nothing else.

That's the whole point. Libertarianism was DONE in the 19th century. Look what it got us. We've moved on.

Keyword in the sentence Nitram is General, meaning everyone. A road will help everyone in one way or the other, it hellps transport your mail etc etc.

You are completely braindead on what I wrote, aren't you? Let's go back and quote it, since I dealt with this.

Subsistence and medical care are absolutely vital to someone's welfare in this day and age, and those two plus education are equally vital to the nation's welfare as a first world nation.

There's a reason I said this. A healthy, well-educated workforce is fucking vital to a first world country because of the outsourcing of unskilled labour jobs.

A federal health insurance plan, would only help the poor, it would not generally help the wealthy or most of the middle class. And the cost would actually harm the ones picking up the tab, and may make them unable to pay for private insurance, and would thus increase the cost even further... Not exactly in everyones best interests now is it? General Welfare need not apply.

As someone whose actually researched the Canadian system(Which is what I would propose be picked up), I know it's per-capita is lower than Medicare, and it covers more folks.

'One implementation may hurt a few folks.. THEREFORE IT IS EVIL'. You just don't get that the nation's welfare is reliant on a healthy, educated workforce, do you?

A small streamlined welfare system, as in, one completely redesigned from the current system, might be acceptable. It would depend on how it could be run.

Canadian system, not the Medicare clusterfuck, should work better.

though, with both you could avoid the constitutionality problem by not actually taxing. Both programs would have to be very very very small, but make "would you like to pay money into a health insurance plan provided by the federal government" as a checkmark on your tax forms. Have something similar for a welfare system. That way,the government doesnt actually 'tax' Hell, politicians would write the shit, they could even add a "think of the children" line at the bottom. It would be voluntary. Though, it would have to be seperate from the rest of the federal budget(bloodsuckers) and it would have to have its own balanced budget(as well as probably being a little more involved than a checkmark) but it would work, and it would be constitutional.

Jesus fuck, back to the question you NEVER ANSWERED.

Prove these systems could function on donations!

[Keevan_Colton]

'At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,'
said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than
usually desirable that we should make some slight
provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer
greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in
want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands
are in want of common comforts, sir.'

'Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down
the pen again.

'And the Union workhouses?' demanded Scrooge.
'Are they still in operation?'

'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman, 'I wish
I could say they were not.'

'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour,
then?' said Scrooge.

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first,
that something had occurred to stop them in their
useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to
hear it.'

[SirNitram]

Basically it would be a government owned business without the socialist bit on outlawing the competition.

I have never heard of a seriously proposed system that outlawed HMOs, at least not here. Sorry, strawman.

And calling something 'Socialist' does not have the desired effect of 'TEH EVAL!' on someone who calls himself a Socialist, Aly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Congratulations. However, you have yet to prove they meant the services you cited and nothing else.

That's the whole point. Libertarianism was DONE in the 19th century. Look what it got us. We've moved on.

You are shifting the burden of proof Nitram. You are putting forth the positive claim that they intended to have other services. I am asserting the negative "no they didnt" Tell me, what else could the founding fathers have intended? seeing as they WROTE THE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE GOVERNMENTS POWER. A massive welfare state was never intended by them, and until 1913, income tax didnt even exist.

And just because a complete lack of regulation didnt work well, does not mean we need to go socialist. Socialism hasnt worked a single time it has been tried over the last century. China has been slowly making a transition toward a market economy, The entire soviet block collapsed. Need I go on?

As someone whose actually researched the Canadian system(Which is what I would propose be picked up), I know it's per-capita is lower than Medicare, and it covers more folks.

'One implementation may hurt a few folks.. THEREFORE IT IS EVIL'. You just don't get that the nation's welfare is reliant on a healthy, educated workforce, do you?

And? It isnt as if people in the US are suffering on a private insurance system either. Those that can afford insurance and dont purchase it do so at their own risk, it is a choice. This little thing called free will. Those that cant, can get the care they need USUALLY(provided they dont live in the boonies, where the point is completely moot anyway) for emergencies because legally a hospital cant turn away someone who is critically injured, and the hospital accepts payment plans. They may get calls from collection agencies, but they cant repo someones new heart.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine Aug 2003, it is illegal for a canadian to own private insurance policies. COuld a Canadian clear this up please?

Also, I have studied it myself, and 22% of all taxes raised in canada go to health care last time I checked, that is 10% of the GDP(Holy shit that scares me... 22% of taxe=10% of the GDP... holy shit) 14% of our GDP goes to healthcare, but that is due to a combination of our medicair/medicaid system, and spending on private insurance. Essentially, we have a dual system.

Then there is the waiting. In Canada, the average time from Specialist consultation to treatment is 9.5 weeks(as of 2003, in 1999 it was 14 weeks). While general practice may not suffer, that waiting is terrible, despite increasing spending by 21%(since 1993) Healthcare is not a problem you can throw money at. Unfortunatly, it doesnt work that way.

Then According to Dr. Davis MD we have more MRI machines in Mesa Arizona than ll of Quebec, but I cant be sure of those figures.

Canada is hardly a model system

[Keevan_Colton]

Alyrium you're playing the stupid fuck US game of Socialism = Communism. Communism has failed badly, Socialism works fine for pretty much the entire first world you trippy, dippy little shit.

So, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy and the like dont exist in your little world where socialism is the prime root of all evil and has failed utterly.

Fuck up, you're being even more moronic than even Libertarianism demands.

[SirNitram]

Congratulations. However, you have yet to prove they meant the services you cited and nothing else.

That's the whole point. Libertarianism was DONE in the 19th century. Look what it got us. We've moved on.

You are shifting the burden of proof Nitram. You are putting forth the positive claim that they intended to have other services.

Flat out lie. I am asserting that the Constitution intends to support the general welfare, and thus your bullshit about the phrasing not allowing for social programs that improve the general welfare is a flat-out lie.

I am asserting the negative "no they didnt" Tell me, what else could the founding fathers have intended? seeing as they WROTE THE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE GOVERNMENTS POWER. A massive welfare state was never intended by them, and until 1913, income tax didnt even exist.

And this does what to support your original bullshit claim, that social programs are not allowed for taxation, and thus taxing for them is stealing? Nothing. The true intent is clear for anyone not up to their ears in Libertarian dogma: The taxation system is there to provide for the general welfare of the people, because that's what it says. I realize a position founded on such clear logic may be evading you, so we'll cover it again.

The Constitution clearly, undeniably states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", and as I have stated, the provision of subsistence, healthcare, and education are fucking vital to the welfare of the country.

You keep snipping that, and it's become clear why: You have no means of tossing it out.

And just because a complete lack of regulation didnt work well, does not mean we need to go socialist. Socialism hasnt worked a single time it has been tried over the last century. China has been slowly making a transition toward a market economy, The entire soviet block collapsed. Need I go on?

You're a fucking retard. At what point do I propose we toss out market economy? At what point do I suggest that we go the other extreme? I'll tell you: No where. Once your Libertarian propaganda wears off, you'll realize there's this interesting gulf between Socialism and Communism, but for now you just seem to be spewing Red Herring and Black/White fallacies.

The creation of a safety net in line with the clear and written intent of the Constitution is not fucking destroying the market economy. It never will be. If you can't comprehend this excessively simple concept, fuck off.

As someone whose actually researched the Canadian system(Which is what I would propose be picked up), I know it's per-capita is lower than Medicare, and it covers more folks.

'One implementation may hurt a few folks.. THEREFORE IT IS EVIL'. You just don't get that the nation's welfare is reliant on a healthy, educated workforce, do you?

And? It isnt as if people in the US are suffering on a private insurance system either. Those that can afford insurance and dont purchase it do so at their own risk, it is a choice. This little thing called free will. Those that cant, can get the care they need USUALLY(provided they dont live in the boonies, where the point is completely moot anyway) for emergencies because legally a hospital cant turn away someone who is critically injured, and the hospital accepts payment plans. They may get calls from collection agencies, but they cant repo someones new heart.

They're just in debt. And that destroys their credit. Have you wondered why someone like me has bad credit, Alyrium? It's because I can't pay for the hospital visit two years ago, when I was running a fever of 103.

You don't fucking get it. Hospitals will fail if they can't get people to pay. The elimination of Medicare will completely destroy their ability to exist in many areas.

And you are actually supporting this.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine Aug 2003, it is illegal for a canadian to own private insurance policies. COuld a Canadian clear this up please?

Also, I have studied it myself, and 22% of all taxes raised in canada go to health care last time I checked, that is 10% of the GDP(Holy shit that scares me... 22% of taxe=10% of the GDP... holy shit) 14% of our GDP goes to healthcare, but that is due to a combination of our medicair/medicaid system, and spending on private insurance. Essentially, we have a dual system.

Which doesn't cover everyone! At worst, therefore, you're arguing that we'd experience only a small change to cover the whole US in a safety net... Huh, doesn't seem bad to me.

Then there is the waiting. In Canada, the average time from Specialist consultation to treatment is 9.5 weeks(as of 2003, in 1999 it was 14 weeks). While general practice may not suffer, that waiting is terrible, despite increasing spending by 21%(since 1993) Healthcare is not a problem you can throw money at. Unfortunatly, it doesnt work that way.

This lie again? How many times has this been dispelled in SLAM?

Then According to Dr. Davis MD we have more MRI machines in Mesa Arizona than ll of Quebec, but I cant be sure of those figures.

Canada is hardly a model system

It's better than the clusterfuck now, and alot better than the Libertarian bullshit you keep proposing.

For the fifth time:

Prove that these systems could exist on donation alone, or concede they cannot.

[His Divine Shadow]

I would like to point out that Canada does support private insurance as well since what is offered by the goverment is a very basic package and alyriums numbers say one thing they also neglect to mention that proportionally the canadian UHC is cheaper than it's american counterpart which is terribly inefficient.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have stated, the provision of subsistence, healthcare, and education are fucking vital to the welfare of the country.

Conceeded on subsistance and education. For pragmatisms sake.

You're a fucking retard. At what point do I propose we toss out market economy? At what point do I suggest that we go the other extreme? I'll tell you: No where. Once your Libertarian propaganda wears off, you'll realize there's this interesting gulf between Socialism and Communism, but for now you just seem to be spewing Red Herring and Black/White fallacies.

The creation of a safety net in line with the clear and written intent of the Constitution is not fucking destroying the market economy. It never will be. If you can't comprehend this excessively simple concept, fuck off.

COnceeded the difference between socialism and communism.

They're just in debt. And that destroys their credit. Have you wondered why someone like me has bad credit, Alyrium? It's because I can't pay for the hospital visit two years ago, when I was running a fever of 103.

You don't fucking get it. Hospitals will fail if they can't get people to pay. The elimination of Medicare will completely destroy their ability to exist in many areas.

And? Someone buys a house and they are in debt. If you cant restore your credit, try filing bankruptcy.

Overgeneralization as well, the people that cant pay for Health Insurance isnt so large as to encompass the entire population in some areas. Then there are the people WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PAY. They have the money, but they would rather have an addition to their house than health insurance. Tht is their own fault if they cant pay. call me a social darwinist all you want, it is true.

For someone who cant pay, I will conceede that there should be something there but it should not be all-encompassing(shouldnt cover EVERYONE, only those who cant pay for private insurance)

This lie again? How many times has this been dispelled in SLAM?

Sorry, Statistics from a reputable study> Anecdotes

It's better than the clusterfuck now

That is the reason for the waitng lists, not enough equipment.

[SirNitram]

Snip explicit concessions.

They're just in debt. And that destroys their credit. Have you wondered why someone like me has bad credit, Alyrium? It's because I can't pay for the hospital visit two years ago, when I was running a fever of 103.

You don't fucking get it. Hospitals will fail if they can't get people to pay. The elimination of Medicare will completely destroy their ability to exist in many areas.

And? Someone buys a house and they are in debt. If you cant restore your credit, try filing bankruptcy.

Overgeneralization as well, the people that cant pay for Health Insurance isnt so large as to encompass the entire population in some areas. Then there are the people WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PAY. They have the money, but they would rather have an addition to their house than health insurance. Tht is their own fault if they cant pay. call me a social darwinist all you want, it is true.

For someone who cant pay, I will conceede that there should be something there but it should not be all-encompassing(shouldnt cover EVERYONE, only those who cant pay for private insurance)

You're missing the point. This method leads to hospitals shutting down. Do you not understand why this is bad?

It's better than the clusterfuck now

That is the reason for the waitng lists, not enough equipment.[/quote]

And look, again the request that you actually back up your outright lie that the need for subsistance and medical care could be supported on donations is snipped.

Alyrium, when you are forced to snip requests for evidence because you don't have any, realize you've been taken for a ride on someone's propaganda machine.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And look, again the request that you actually back up your outright lie that the need for subsistance and medical care could be supported on donations is snipped.

Alyrium, when you are forced to snip requests for evidence because you don't have any, realize you've been taken for a ride on someone's propaganda machine.

Suggested an alternative to the strict taxation, but you ignored it. But very well, point conceeded.

[SirNitram]

And look, again the request that you actually back up your outright lie that the need for subsistance and medical care could be supported on donations is snipped.

Alyrium, when you are forced to snip requests for evidence because you don't have any, realize you've been taken for a ride on someone's propaganda machine.

Suggested an alternative to the strict taxation, but you ignored it. But very well, point conceeded.

I asked you to prove that alternative would actually pull in enough to work. You snipped. That's not me ignoring it, Alyrium, that's you unable to support it's existance. Thank you for the concession, however.

[Gil Hamilton]

Don't worry, Nitram. I'm sure Alyrium will outgrow libertarianism when it becomes time to go to college and FASFA and other forms of Federal Aid start to look real attractive. Unless of course he's planning to do the true blue libertarian thing and pay for uni completely out of pocket, so not to be a complete hypocrite.

[Knife]

Whiney Greedy Bastard : "But, it's my fuckin' money! I should keep my money! Fuck the fact I've recieved benifits from the government when needed in the form of protection and education, I didnt need as much help so I dont wanna give any fuckin' money for some bitch to be able to contribute! Send 'em to the fuckin' workhouses!"

Lovely black and white fallacy. I never said let her starve. But if my tax burden is so high I can't pay for either me or the wife to go to college, why the fuck should she go for free?

It says something, when the only way you can go to school is to get a free ride off of tax payer's money. Assistance? Yes. Totally free, up to and including your fucking babysitting? No.