He got a nasty rejection when he tried out for the cheerleading squad.

I don't see the need to artificially inflate the job market. There are plenty of jobs out there without the government providing them. Also, how much of a large government do you want? While it's true the government is the largest employer, I don't see the need to expand that. More bloat? Lovely.

Also, it's a sort of forced labor. While I personally don't have a problem with that, I'd imagine the sorts of hoo-ha that would go around to get away from it.

"Bob can't work because he has a large family to supervise."
"Mandy has fibromyalgia."
"Randy has religious reasons against work."

There's plenty of jobs. It's not my job to pay for some oaf who can't find one on his own and needs to government to direct him to pick leaves.



Also, and I'm gonna get railed for this, but people do give themselves diseases via their lifestyle. Lung cancer accounts for around 29% of cancer deaths, and the leading cause? Smoking is estimated to be around 87%.

Let's look at another large problem in our fair country: obesity. This goes hand in hand with diabetes II, hypertension, CAD, etc, etc. These are chronic, and to be blunt, expensive diseases.

And let's go to a third category, STD's and related consequences. I won't even bother to explain how this is related to personal choices.

A great deal of diseases, accidents, and whatever are indeed induced by personal choices. It's common knowledge that smoking, eating McDonald's every day, and sleeping around are bad choices. People do them anyway, and suffer the consequences. I don't want to suffer along with them, and there's no good reason I should. Otherwise, if I have to pay for some idiot doing something stupid, I should have the right to grab a cigarette from their mouth and smash it or take that big mac and shove it in the wrong end.

Although on the flip side there are a lot of unpreventable diseases. Breast and prostate cancer, for example. There is no reasonable prevention out there. As draconian as I may sound, prophylactic mastectomy is not something I'd advocate. For everything else, there's the fact it's like every other act of god: you prepare. Go get mammograms and digital rectal exams, colonoscopies and breast biopsies. Get yearly checkups. It's like not brushing your teeth and then complaining of cavities. These aren't bank breaking to do currently, even without insurance. More expensive than it should be, but still affordable. Something should be done about the cost of healthcare in a more intelligent manner.

Then there's a third category: Unpreventable, undetectable, or untreatable diseases, and lifelong debilitating injuries. I wouldn't mind paying for that, but considering how much in the minority those things are, it wouldn't cost that much.

All in all, there should be a way of cutting costs of health care, however just blankly providing it to everyone is not the solution. I do believe in personal responsibility and accountability, not pushing it on others.

Yes, and a lot of these self-inflicted diseases could be avoided if people didn't have to worry about the cost of going to see a doctor about minor health complaint. If I go to the doctor because of some sort of minor digestive problem and am told that it's because of my unhealthy diet, I change what I'm eating before it becomes a serious issue.

If I had to worry about insurance forms and the risk of my case being rejected I would be far less inlined to see a doctor and would only go when it becomes something I truly can't ignore. At which point it's likely much more serious and expensive to treat, not to mention hospital space and time.

I didn't accuse you of anything, I posted this picture:



Your post was horrendously written anyway, cry me a river

fixed for accuracy.

It was horrendously written to be honest.

This is you

You sort of missed the point. I said at the beginning that it was a difficult read, because it was mostly syllogisms. I was trying to be as precise as possible, but didn't really have the time to make it as readable as possible. So I guess from a literary perspective, it needs a lot of work. However, I was trying to present a long series of reasoning, which, you will find, does follow, if you pick through it, and like I said before, it does take some effort, but it all adds up.

This is horrendously written too

Reading your posts is like walking through head-high briar bushes

A few employers will give bonuses to employees who quit smoking or lose weight, because it saves them on insurance costs. Perhaps the government, under a national health plan, could do something similar. Maybe people with a healthier lifestyle could receive better benefits, or perhaps limit the amount of insurance used for lifestyle-created diseases and conditions.

HILLARY CAN ****ING DIE.

That's about all I have to say.

That's very harsh. I honestly don't see anything wrong with her.

shez a GIRL

ie cooties

I despise Hillary because she doesn't stay concrete, she sways with the public opinion to gain the popular vote.

She supported the war in the beginning and when it became "unpopular" she realized how "stupid" she was for supporting it.

If a person can't keep true to their word in a situation like that, I don't trust them in power of a country.

Also, Bill has had many affairs with other women. If Hillary cannot control her own husband's actions, how can she control a country?

Of all the criticisms you could make, please don't tell me you're seriously putting this one forward!? Goddamn that's slimy.

:saddowns:

But I added the 42 parenthetical expressions just for you!

That would include most of congress as well, who I am also opposed to. Only the problem is that they already do run the country, which is a shame.

So then we shouldn't add another one to the mix. That and Hillary would love to be Momma President and nuture and "care" for all 300M of her children by keeping them away from the eeeeevil media

I take the precautions to keep my house from setting on fire. Other people do not, their house is 88% more likely to catch on fire, therefore, screw them, I don't want to pay to keep their house from being saved by the fire department.

The free market is so the way to go, just watch Gangs of New York.

Health care is way more complicated (and expensive) than gathering a bunch of guys in a large truck to aim a water hose at a burning building.

People have medication needs. They have to see doctors at certain intervals. Emergency services have to be handled. EKG, EEG, MRI, CAT, PET scans X-ray. Rehabilitation. Physical therapy. Mental therapy. "Fill out Form 32A and go to cardiology"

Have you really thought about what it would take to give ALL Americans health care? See past the "omg! we should help people out!" (i.e. bleeding heart)

Ron Paul v Barack Obama

If that happens, I don't care who the president is. I think they would both do a pretty good job. (Although I would vote for Paul)

Curious. What makes Ron Paul attractive to "the Left" ? Is it because he's against the war?

Because he's so cute.

Obama is very professional, but I don't think he would do what is necessary to get our financial situation straightened out, and he'd probably make it worse. This is going to be a huge issue in twenty years.

Yep.

That, and his campaign projects the image of "sticking it to the man"

It reads like a william shatner song.

Yeah it's strange that Ron Paul has attracted so many leftists as most of his policies are very anti-leftist.

Your winners in New Hampshire today are Barack Obama and John McCain.

Yeah, but these numbers have me concerned. Stupid northeast and California. Stop picking the wrong candidate!

This election is made of fail and lose. I think I'll start making signs that say "Don't Vote" to piss off all the little political fan boys who've gotten us into this mess.

pretty sure others have done that

not too sure about the feedback

Not voting is a really dumb thing to do. Or not do.

If you don't vote, your saying you don't care at all. And throwing a hissy fit because noone matchs your particularly beliefs 100% is also stupid.

Hmm, apparently Hillary won this time, not Obama, she barely won.

Well, most leftists aren't very bright

You know how it is

Hillary winning

Ok, she has to lose the remaining 48 states.

As opposed to rightists?

Why, on New Hampshire, Hilary has the check mark but it shows her with 11 delegates to Obama's 12?

In fact, the entire scoreboard doesn't make sense at all.

Clinton winning is statistically the least likely thing that has happened so far this year. So unlikely, actually, that I think there's real cause for concern about the legitimacy of the result.

Mind you, I have no concrete evidence of irregularities. But it does bother me, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some discussion of it over the next few days.