Sono, I can't resist your challenge questions!!!
1. “Why it is better to have enormous percentages of the population un-insured?”
I would claim that your question is based on a false-assumption. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
If this act were repealed, the model that USED to be in place, the one where the consumer paid for routine medical care and had an automatic incentive to keep costs down, there would be hardly anyone who couldn’t afford health insurance because the market would be FORCED to lower prices or they would go out of business.
As an example, I have an Uncle who’s now 82. All of his kids were born in the 50’s and 60’s, before the current health care model that is currently forced on us. His last kid was born in 1962. He paid CASH to the hospital for his wife’s delivery and 4-day stay. He paid just over 400 in cash for EVERYTHING. Now, even rated to the index of inflation, that’s still CHEAP. But why is that? I’ll tell you why, because health insurance policies didn’t normally cover ANYTHING back then except catastrophic coverage (high deductable, but everything after a certain amount was covered). We, the consumers of the service, paid cash for routine care like childbirths, and looked at our bills and questioned everything that we were being charged for.
There was also no Federal Scams like Medicare and Medicaid which underpaid doctors and hospitals who, in turn, shifted those losses onto the consumers which paid cash or had insurance. In other words, government created the problem, and then compounds the problems with even more legislation.
You might ask; “But what would we do without government-funded health care safety-nets?” I guess we would all fall over dead in the streets without the omniscient, all-wise, all-good, all-knowing, benevolent government running this facet of our lives. (please note the sarcasm)
2. “Why it is a good thing to invade countries who have not attacked ours?”
I can only answer that with my own questions. Are you assuming that it’s a good thing to have a standing army numbering in the hundreds of thousands and military bases in 120 other countries all around the world? Don’t you think it’s only a matter of time that this disposition of power will be abused? Why do you support politicians who fund the Military-Industrial Complex then? Do you think that it’s ok for our country to attack other sovereign nations without the Congress officially declaring war? (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Libya, etc.) Why was it ok for us to go to war then, but not now, as with Iraq and Afghanistan? Why support any President that invades or continues an occupation of a country that never attacked us? Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans on this issue. Take a look at what Democratic and Republican politicians have created around the world here:
http://www.motherjones.com/military-mapsIs this what “free societies” do, have world military empires?
3. “why it is important to make sure only heteros are allowed to be married?”
Why are you assuming that it’s the Government’s proper role to sanctify marriage PERIOD? You’re complaining about favoritism, tax-status, and laws which have no role in a free society. Marriage is something that only Churches should be sanctifying, not governments. If government wasn’t involved in this, you wouldn’t have anything to complain about. You should strive to get government out of it, rather than trying to “even the playing field”, so to speak. I elaborated on this quite a bit here at MS:
http://www.malesurvivor.org/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=224428#Post224428 In this thread, I stated: “And what about us single people? We're the NEW discriminated class. If we live until age 67, then die, ALLLLLLL of the money we put into social security goes back into the pool to pay for future retirees. Meanwhile you "married" people get to leave a "death benefit" for your "spouse", and they get a monthly check until they die, which could be for another 50 years in extreme cases. Talk about discrimination!
Oh, and if your "spouse" gets a job offer, you get to tag along and get unemployment insurance while you move to your new residence even though you voluntarily quit your job to be with your "husband". Try doing that if you're single and see how far you get.
If you're "married" and in the military, you automatically get better on-base housing, even if you're the same pay grade/rank.
If you're unmarried, you can legally be denied leave from your employer to care for a newborn child.
There are more examples I could site, such as the stupid tax code which is way to long for the purposes of this discussion, so I'll site my one single favorite assanine tax code: "married" people are entitled, when they sell their home, to a $500,000 capital gains exemption. Thus, for "married" people, $500,000 of the gain from sale of the home is exempt from taxes. Single people are only entitled to a $250,000 exemption. What's THAT all about?
I think you get my point. With respect, I'm not going to celebrate the confiscation of money and privileges from one group of people to another simply because the state sanctions their relationship.”
4. “why it is better to let everything around us which is maintained by the state fall into a state of disarray rather than pay another 50 bucks a year in taxes?”
You’re getting to the very nature of government itself now. Here’s the problem with your ideology. That 50 extra bucks a year is NEVER ENOUGH. By it’s very nature, government ALWAYS wants more money, so that they can do more “good” things; like locking up more pot-smokers, subsidizing tobacco farmers and concurrently pay for healthy “quitting programs” and subsidizing corn growers so that they can give factory farms cheap food and make us all fat because fast food is now cheaper than healthy food, while at the same time paying for the health care indigent/fat people who can’t work because they’ve been eating at Wendy’s 3 times/day for most of their lives……….I’m getting convoluted now so I’ll shut up about this.
Also, there are only so many resources to go around. If you want drug users\sellers in prison, if you want to maintain a world empire, if you want government to take care of us from cradle to grave, the money is going to fall short somewhere.
To your credit Sono, your presumption that a heavily taxed society can maintain a higher standard of living for its citizens is not without merit. Just look at Switzerland and Sweden, for instance, they have that coveted free health care, and many, many other perks that we Americans never see, but they’re also not maintaining the world’s largest prison population, nor are they managing world empires and trying to police the world.
5. “why things like airport security are better privately managed”
Are you suggesting that it’s better to have former Mcdonald’s employees (TSA) to be given tasers and guns and fondle/feel all passengers before they get on a plane? How about letting the Airlines themselves provide security? Or, better yet, how about letting all conceal/carry permitted passengers be let on board? GASP! “We couldn’t possibly let just anybody with a gun on board a plane!” you say. Well, before 1971, anyone COULD legally bring a gun on a plane. Would you contend that the skies were utter chaos before then?
6. “why talking with countries with whom we have serious differences is anathema while bombing them is a realistic course of action,”
As we speak, nearly every day, people are being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by bombs. And this is with a “liberal” Democratic President. I can link you if you wish. Here is a typical example, although before Obama was President:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/11/afghanistan.usa This still goes on ALL the time.
7 “purchase a machine gun is important”
Would you really want to live in a world where only Government and criminals have machine guns? What if the Government becomes tyrannical and needs to be overthrown? You think that won’t happen here? Do you think that the U.S.A. is endowed with some divine providence which won’t allow it to become this? Why do you care if I have a machine gun anyway? I thought this was a free country.
Previous Topic
Index