I frequently come across the expression liberal do-gooder used pejoratively. In my vocabulary being liberal and doing good are virtues. Can someone please explain what is going on ?

Baron Max will tell you everything you need to know...;)

[QUOTE=shorty_37;1641997]Baron Max will tell you everything you need to know.


Thank you. I look forward to hearing from him

I frequently come across the expression liberal do-gooder used pejoratively. In my vocabulary being liberal and doing good are virtues. Can someone please explain what is going on?

The best way to explain it to you is ....read the posts and threads where you've seen that term used. If you do so, then you'll see it clearly and no one will have to explain it to you.

By the way, I'm guessing that you're one of those fuckin' liberal doo-gooders yourself. I can tell just by the way you're already trying to defend it. :D

And, no, "liberal" is not a virtue ....liberal means to steal from someone who worked to earn his wealth, then turn around and give it to someone else who doesn't want to work to earn anything.

Baron Max

I frequently come across the expression liberal do-gooder used pejoratively. In my vocabulary being liberal and doing good are virtues. Can someone please explain what is going on ?

Hello Myles,

Since Max chose to be just a bit obtuse, I'll try to go the extra mile. :)

Te term is used in a derogatory sense as a label for those who advocate things like 'redistribution of wealth.' They feel that everyone - EVERYONE - regardless of the degree of effort they put forth, are entitled to enjoy the exact same standard of living as those that worked very hard for it. They see capitalism as a crime against humanity because they view it as oppressing and exploiting "the poor." They also think the word 'profit' is the essence of evil.

Someone wearing that label would never use the word lazy in describing any individual - rather, they would say those people are "disadvantaged."

Little do they realize that by installing even more entitlement programs for the lazy members of the world that they are actually making worse the very problem they are attempting to solve. What I men by that is that the lazy ones make no effort at all beyond learning how to milk the various 'aid' programs - and then pass along that knowledge to each other and their offspring.

I could actually go on but I believe you understand it by now.;)

I'm guessing that you're one of those fuckin' liberal doo-gooders yourself.


Baron Max

I see your job is done here! :D

I frequently come across the expression liberal do-gooder used pejoratively. In my vocabulary being liberal and doing good are virtues. Can someone please explain what is going on ?

Basically someone who loves to tax the shit outta everyone, for their own pet social project.

Quiz: Is this a liberal do-gooder?

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/HomelessVetWorthlessBum.jpg

Quiz: Is this a liberal do-gooder?


Maybe if less tax money were spent on social services for pansy liberals who can't take care of themselves, more money could be spent on properly following through with vet aid?

Maybe if less tax money were spent on social services for pansy liberals who can't take care of themselves, more money could be spent on properly following through with vet aid?

I would modify that sentence to say, "...who WON"T task care of themselves." There are plenty of people who are honestly in need of help and I'm all for them getting assistance. But I have NO sympathy at all for those that are too lazy to work - and there are far too many of them.

Maybe if less tax money were spent on social services for pansy liberals who can't take care of themselves, more money could be spent on properly following through with vet aid?

It is amazing that conservatives find ways to channel unbelievable sums of money to wage wars, but then find themselves impotent victims of liberals when it comes to allocating money to aid veterans? You poor things. You need lobbyists.

A Liberal Do-Gooder is someone who

- preaches equality and goodness;
- thinks he knows what is the best for everyone, and insists in this no matter what;
- demands that his actions be judged by the motives he declares to have, regardless of the actual outcomes and effects of those actions.

A ____________ Do-Gooder is someone who

- preaches __________ and __________; (abstract qualities: could be individualism and responsibility, for example)
- thinks he knows what is the best for everyone, and insists in this no matter what;
- demands that his actions be judged by the motives he declares to have, regardless of the actual outcomes and effects of those actions.

My changes in dark red.

This would seem to take in most classes of political entity, certainly conservatives.

[QUOTE=Baron Max;1642230

By the way, I'm guessing that you're one of those fuckin' liberal doo-gooders yourself. I can tell just by the way you're already trying to defend it. :D
And, no, "liberal" is not a virtue ....liberal means to steal from someone who worked to earn his wealth, then turn around and give it to someone else who doesn't want to work to earn anything.
Baron Max



What on earth are you talking about ? Here in the UK we have a Liberal Party,
and it is no part of their manifesto to steal from anyone. Having said that, when I asked the quesrion, I neither referred to nor was I thinking of politics.I am not a memberof any political party.

How many of the millions of children dying in Africa as I write this are unwilling to work ? Does wanting to help them privately and at governmental level make me a do-gooder in your eyes. ?If so, then I would regard you as a greedy, self-centured individual.

The illiberal way in which you express yourself says all I need to know about you, so I shall trouble you no further. Who would have thought that a simple request for information could provoke such an irascible outburst ? Perhaps your government should spend a bit more on education.

My changes in dark red.



“ Originally Posted by greenberg
A ____________ Do-Gooder is someone who

- preaches __________ and __________; (abstract qualities: could be individualism and responsibility, for example)
- thinks he knows what is the best for everyone, and insists in this no matter what;
- demands that his actions be judged by the motives he declares to have, regardless of the actual outcomes and effects of those actions. ”

My changes in dark red.

This would seem to take in most classes of political entity, certainly conservatives.

Completely incorrect!

The Do-Gooder NEVER, EVER preaches the responsibility of the individual - instead, he/she wants the entire mass of the community/country to bear all the responsibilities of every individual - no matter how low-life some of those individuals are.

Completely incorrect!

The Do-Gooder NEVER, EVER preaches the responsibility of the individual - instead, he/she wants the entire mass of the community/country to bear all the responsibilities of every individual - no matter how low-life some of those individuals are.

Conservatives claim to be doing good and those are words they often use. So using my template when describing a Conservative Do-Gooder we might fill in the blanks with those words, or perhaps 'freedom' instead of individuality. Or some other distracting abstraction so that we not notice that the next couple of points are true about this kind of Do Gooder also.

[QUOTE=Read-Only;1642253



Someone wearing that label would never use the word lazy in describing any individual - rather, they would say those people are "disadvantaged".

That certainly clarifies matters. I make a distinction between people who are disadvantaged and those who are scroungers. I imagine you would too.

[QUOTE=Baron Max;1642230

By the way, I'm guessing that you're one of those fuckin' liberal doo-gooders yourself. I can tell just by the way you're already trying to defend it. :D
And, no, "liberal" is not a virtue ....liberal means to steal from someone who worked to earn his wealth, then turn around and give it to someone else who doesn't want to work to earn anything.
Baron Max



What on earth are you talking about ? Here in the UK we have a Liberal Party
and it is no part of their manifesto to steal from anyone. Having said that, when I asked the quesrion, I neither referred to nor was I thinking of politics.

How many ofthe millions of children dying in Africa as I write this are unwilling to work ? Does wanting to help them privately and at governmental level make me a do-gooder in your eyes. ?If so, then I would regard you as a greedy, self-centured individual.

The illiberal way in which you express yourself says all I need to know abouit you, so I shall trouble you no further. Who would have thought that a simple request for information could provoke such an irascible outburst ? Perhaps your government ought to spend a bit more on education.

No, Myles, Your question was good and honest one - and I, for one, tried to respond to it honestly. It has nothing at all to do with providing aid to children (and others) in distress in other countries by individuals and/or other entities.

As I tried to explain earlier, it's a label reserved for stupid people who feel it's proper to give every single person the same exact same standard of living regardless of the lack of effort that many make to improve their individual conditions. The cornerstone of their approach is advocating taking away from those who have worked hard to improve their own lives and simply give it to those who are able to work but are too lazy to do so.

The term most certainly does NOT apply to those who give aid to people who are needy through no fault of their own! Only to those who want to "help" worthless individuals who will make NO attempt to work and earn their own way.

The term is used in a derogatory sense as a label for those who advocate things like 'redistribution of wealth.' They feel that everyone - EVERYONE - regardless of the degree of effort they put forth, are entitled to enjoy the exact same standard of living as those that worked very hard for it. They see capitalism as a crime against humanity because they view it as oppressing and exploiting "the poor." They also think the word 'profit' is the essence of evil.

Communists? :eek:

[QUOTE=francois;1642326]Maybe if less tax money were spent on social services for pansy liberals who can't take care of themselves, more money could be spent on properly following through with vet aid


What a hornet's nest I appear to have unwittingly stirred up. So should I have asked about "Pansy Liberal Do-gooders " ? In what way does the addition of "pansy" change the definition ?

Do you make a distinction between a veteran who, through no fault of his own, is disadvantaged and one who simply wants handouts for doing a job he was paid to do ?

A Liberal Do-Gooder is someone who

- preaches equality and goodness;
- thinks he knows what is the best for everyone, and insists in this no matter what;- demands that his actions be judged by the motives he declares to have, regardless of the actual outcomes and effects of those actions.




What a good definition of "politician"

If "liberal doo-gooders" would just go ahead and help those that they want to help, WITHOUT trying to force others to help when they don't want to, then "liberal doo-gooder" might not be such a derogatory term.

But, see, liberal doo-gooders don't want to do it themselves .....they want to force others to do it!!! And that ain't nice.

Baron Max

So, a socialist?

So, a socialist?

In a word, yes. But a liberal doo-gooder will swear that it's not "socialism" and he'll also swear that it's all democratic and for "we, the people" ...and all of that other horseshit.

The problem is trying to get a liberal doo-gooder to admit that he's a liberal doo-gooder. They have all sorts of "reasons" for giving MY money to some drunken, homeless, lazy bum!!

Baron Max

So, a hypocritical socialist! The worst kind. :frust:

If "liberal doo-gooders" would just go ahead and help those that they want to help, WITHOUT trying to force others to help when they don't want to, then "liberal doo-gooder" might not be such a derogatory term.

But, see, liberal doo-gooders don't want to do it themselves .....they want to force others to do it!!! And that ain't nice.

Baron Max



Have you been disenfranchised ?

The problem is trying to get a liberal doo-gooder to admit that he's a liberal doo-gooder. They have all sorts of "reasons" for giving MY money to some drunken, homeless, lazy bum!!

Baron Max

What an outrageous way to characterize the major shareholders in Haliburton.

Haliburton gives my money to homeless people?! Those damn socialists! :mad:

Oh, I thought Baron was talking about all the reasons the Bush administration fabricated for tranferring his tax dollars to Haliburton.
I find it hard to keep up with what makes Conservatives feel good about having their money taken away. If it goes to the well off, it's OK, but if it goes to the poor it's bad.

I will keep working on this.

"Liberal do-gooder" (often joined with "bleeding heart") is a term conservatives use to make it seem that liberals "think" with their heart rather than their heads.

Of course this is just as false as to claim that all conservatives are heartless and self-interested and jealous over the idea that someone else is getting something for free that they're not getting. There are conservatives who honestly believe that social programs negatively affect the people who are served by them by instilling a sense of learned helplessness and that those people would be better off without such programs. There are also liberals who honestly believe that there are strong, rational reasons for social programs that have nothing to do with wanting to be nice to people and everything to do with serving the best interests of the society as a whole.

The reasons the Roman rulers gave bread and circuses to the public were entirely self-interested--they didn't want to have plebians revolting and causing even greater expenses to the ruling class. I believe anyone who is honest about it will see similar, self-interested reasons for many social programs and foreign aid. For example, drug treatment programs are a lot cheaper than putting someone in prison. For that matter, providing a free education is cheaper than putting someone in prison. However, conservatives wouldn't want to spend on such programs but will happily build more prisons.

As for the idea that liberals want to steal money from people to give it to other people, that claim can be equally applied to conservatives. One need only look at the current administration that's rung up the biggest deficeit in American history. The only thing that differs is who the conservatives want to give the money too (i.e., military industrial companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc.).

maxq, I could kiss you for that post.

"Liberal do-gooder" (often joined with "bleeding heart") is a term conservatives use to make it seem that liberals "think" with their heart rather than their heads.

Of course this is just as false as to claim that all conservatives are heartless and self-interested and jealous over the idea that someone else is getting something for free that they're not getting. There are conservatives who honestly believe that social programs negatively affect the people who are served by them by instilling a sense of learned helplessness and that those people would be better off without such programs. There are also liberals who honestly believe that there are strong, rational reasons for social programs that have nothing to do with wanting to be nice to people and everything to do with serving the best interests of the society as a whole.

The reasons the Roman rulers gave bread and circuses to the public were entirely self-interested--they didn't want to have plebians revolting and causing even greater expenses to the ruling class. I believe anyone who is honest about it will see similar, self-interested reasons for many social programs and foreign aid. For example, drug treatment programs are a lot cheaper than putting someone in prison. For that matter, providing a free education is cheaper than putting someone in prison. However, conservatives wouldn't want to spend on such programs but will happily build more prisons.

As for the idea that liberals want to steal money from people to give it to other people, that claim can be equally applied to conservatives. One need only look at the current administration that's rung up the biggest deficeit in American history. The only thing that differs is who the conservatives want to give the money too (i.e., military industrial companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc.).
hey, I meant that. why does saying it poorly and confusingly make a difference. Jealous.

Good job.

[QUOTE=francois;1642326]Maybe if less tax money were spent on social services for pansy liberals who can't take care of themselves, more money could be spent on properly following through with vet aid


What a hornet's nest I appear to have unwittingly stirred up. So should I have asked about "Pansy Liberal Do-gooders " ? In what way does the addition of "pansy" change the definition ?

The "pansy" indicates a person who is mentally/physically weak and gives in all to easily when pressure is applied. In this case, pressure from his own do-gooder group or those making a fuss because they want more free handouts.

]Do you make a distinction between a veteran who, through no fault of his own, is disadvantaged and one who simply wants handouts for doing a job he was paid to do ?

Absolutely. The one who is disadvantaged - such as by loosing his job because he was away in the military - is no different than anyone else who is TRULY disadvantaged at not at fault. The ones simply wanting handouts are no different from others who simply want things handed to them - lazy. Many of those went into service because they didn't understand what it was all about and thought they could just skate through while getting paid and free food, clothing, etc.

[QUOTE=Read-Only;1642849][QUOTE=Myles;1642540

"]The "pansy" indicates a person who is mentally/physically weak and gives in all to easily when pressure is applied. In this case, pressure from his own do-gooder group or those making a fuss because they want more free handouts.

Absolutely. The one who is disadvantaged - such as by loosing his job because he was away in the military - is no different than anyone else who is TRULY disadvantaged at not at fault. The ones simply wanting handouts are no different from others who simply want things handed to them - lazy. Many of those went into service because they didn't understand what it was all about and thought they could just skate through while getting paid and free food, clothing, etc.



That sounds very reasonable to me. The problem seems to be one of finding agreement as to how the cake should be shared.

Incidentally. "pansy" is a derogatory word for homesexual in the UK; hence my confusion

[QUOTE=Read-Only;1642849][QUOTE=Myles;1642540

"]The "pansy" indicates a person who is mentally/physically weak and gives in all to easily when pressure is applied. In this case, pressure from his own do-gooder group or those making a fuss because they want more free handouts.

Absolutely. The one who is disadvantaged - such as by loosing his job because he was away in the military - is no different than anyone else who is TRULY disadvantaged at not at fault. The ones simply wanting handouts are no different from others who simply want things handed to them - lazy. Many of those went into service because they didn't understand what it was all about and thought they could just skate through while getting paid and free food, clothing, etc.



That sounds very reasonable to me. The problem seems to be one of finding agreement as to how the cake should be shared.

Incidentally. "pansy" is a derogatory word for homesexual in the UK; hence my confusion

For me, the solution to the problem is very simple. The cake should be shared by those willing to work for their slice and by those who are unable to work due to some mental/physical handicap or recent catastrophe such as loss of employment or home due to fire, flood etc. None at all should be given tho those who are able to work and simply CHOOSE not to do so. No excuse in the world can cover that.

There is absolutey NOTHING wrong with doing good - but there's everything wrong about handing out aid in any form to truly lazy bums who will not lift a single finger to help themselves.

There is absolutey NOTHING wrong with doing good - ...

I agree ...but only if it's done voluntarily. However, you will note that the bleeding-heart, liberal, doo-gooders are trying to force all others give money or help. That's not how it should be done in a representative democracy.

...but there's everything wrong about handing out aid in any form to truly lazy bums who will not lift a single finger to help themselves.

I agree. But then, I also wonder why all the bleeding-heart, liberal doo-gooders don't just form their own little private, independent group, "The Liberal Doo-Gooder Society", and then pool all their OWN money to help anyone and everyone that they wish to help ....even the drunken, addicted, lazy bastards who don't want to work.

If liberal doo-gooders are really so fuckin' "good", then why don't they do it themselves? Why try to force others to do it for them?

Baron Max

Incidentally. "pansy" is a derogatory word for homesexual in the UK; hence my confusion

I am quite sure that some of this meaning was intended. Conservatives see themselves, at least the men, as more manly than liberals. It's good when this perhaps more fundamental issue bubbles up to the surface.

In doing good, liberal policies also lift the entire society, since the society is only as good as it's weakest and most disadvantaged members. Charges that people will take advantage of the government's help are spurious, since those are a small minority.

We have already seen the effects of complete economic freedom in the stratified society of Dicken's England.

[QUOTE=Baron Max;1642921]I agree ...but only if it's done voluntarily. However, you will note that the bleeding-heart, liberal, doo-gooders are trying to force all others give money or help. That's not how it should be done in a representative democracy.


I don't understand your problem. My understanding of democracy is that the kind of question we are discussing here is "decided" by the will of the majority. That's why I asked you in an earlier post whether you had been disenfranchised. Are the people you despise so much trying to operate outside the system by behaving improperly in some way ?

In a democracy I can express any opinion I care to, try to persuade others to agree with me, by peaceful means,and so on. Your posts give me the impression that a group of your fellow-Americans are trying to take money from you by force. How can such a thing happen ?

I frequently come across the expression liberal do-gooder used pejoratively. In my vocabulary being liberal and doing good are virtues. Can someone please explain what is going on ?
A liberal do gooder is a busy body who butts his nose into everyone else's business and then wants to reach into someone elses pocket to pay for whatever grandiose plans he comes up with.

Tho opposite of a right wing gun wielding, freedom suppressing, know it all.

[QUOTE=madanthonywayne;1643004]A liberal do gooder is a busy body who butts his nose into everyone else's business and then wants to reach into someone elses pocket to pay for whatever grandiose plans he comes up with.


That is scarcely an explanation, which is what I asked for. It's an unsupported statement of opinion .

It's called an analogy. You're a smart guy, right? Figure it out.



Don't hold other people responsible for your personal shortcomings. It's real simple: just like my associate doesn't like to be thought of as racist or sexist despite the things he says, neither do you like to be included with irrational folks who use the pejorative "liberal do-gooder". The easiest way to exclude yourself from such a group is to not act like them.

You're a smart guy, right? Figure it out.



So, are you saying that you should be able to parrot what irrational people say and be thought of as smart and rational for doing so?



Don't hold your breath.

I mean, you're a smart guy, right? Figure it out.

Yes, I'm a fairly smart (intelligent) guy. Now YOU figure THIS one out: exactly what is right about giving free handouts to someone who is too lazy to work? Or are you naive enough to claim they don't exist? I suspect you know they do, so exactly what IS your excuse for wanting to help them?

I've also made it exceedingly clear in this thread that I certainly believe we all should help those to truly need and deserve it. The ones who are unable to work due to physical or mental handicaps or have suffered great loss.

But what I'm really attempting to get at with you is this: upon exactly what statements of mine are you basing your "analogy?" I've never said anything to indicate that I think in the fashion you claim I remind you of. I'm nowhere close to being such a crass individual as you've attempted to make me out to be.

Explain yourself.

Actually, I think that cliche has been beaten to death. Beating a dead horse is one thing, but you're pushing on necrophilia. "Handouts to the lazy" is a catch-all for avoiding the subtleties of a complicated and dynamic challenge in society.



Your defense of inflammatory language, your insistence on justifying a pejorative invested entirely in embittered imaginations.

Incorrect and inaccurate statements. I've actually known several people - families, in fact - that accurately fit that description. And I made serious attempts to help them (with both time and money and other things) but eventually had to give up because they honestly weren't interested in giving up their entitlement program benefits and working.

One particular fellow stands out clearly. He had an almost natural gift for fixing small engines - things like lawn mowers, string trimmers, 4-wheelers and the like. I offered him the free use of building I owned and proposed to provide whatever was needed to put him in business. He refused saying he didn't like the idea of having to get up at the same time every day and going to work, Besides, he said, he might loose some or all of his "bennies." After trying for a little over a month, I finally gave up on him in total disgust.

And I'm betting that YOU have never, ever tried to help such an individual - not even one - personally. And yet here you are accusing me of being guilty of "embittered imaginations!" I now view you as one of THE worst hypocrites to appear in this place. Shame!:bugeye:

The problem is trying to get a liberal doo-gooder to admit that he's a liberal doo-gooder. They have all sorts of "reasons" for giving MY money to some drunken, homeless, lazy bum!!

Baron Max
Don't forget children with disabilities that your hard earned money is going to. Or "defective children" as you prefer call them.

Incorrect and inaccurate statements. I've actually known several people - families, in fact - that accurately fit that description. And I made serious attempts to help them (with both time and money and other things) but eventually had to give up because they honestly weren't interested in giving up their entitlement program benefits and working.

...


You are talking about loopholes in so-called entitlement programs. These are highly exaggerated by cons and amount to a tiny percentage of all those who need help. I would go farther and say we should be entitled to free health care and free education to the graduate level.

Like the GI bill after WWII, this type of investment will pay back many times over what is spent. Cons tend to think only in terms of short term loss and gain.

A government that has little involvement in it's citizen's welfare may have been possible when resources were plentiful and the population low, but not now. Where would we be without public education for one thing? We wouldn't have gone to the moon.

You are talking about loopholes in so-called entitlement programs. These are highly exaggerated by cons and amount to a tiny percentage of all those who need help. I would go farther and say we should be entitled to free health care and free education to the graduate level.

Like the GI bill after WWII, this type of investment will pay back many times over what is spent.

Considering we're already bankrupting ourselves with our current entitlement programs which are much more limited in scope compared to your wish for completely free health care and free education to the graduate level, how exactly would this investment pay back? How would you implement this grand scheme of yours?

The GI Bill, I feel, is more of a payment or bonus to our vets. This is money and benefits going to people who have already performed a valuable service to our country.

In no way are we bankrupt from current programs.

In no way are we bankrupt from current programs.

Bankrupting, we're certainly getting there.

Medicare faces continuing financial issues. In its 2006 annual report to Congress, the Medicare Board of Trustees reported that the program's hospital insurance trust fund could run out of money by 2018. The trustees have made such projections in the past, but this one was bleaker than the outlook reported in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Criticism)

With 9 trillion in debt, a falling dollar, the middle class being squeezed out, how do we pay for an even bigger program?

With 9 trillion in debt, a falling dollar, the middle class being squeezed out, how do we pay for an even bigger program?

By not spending ridiculous amounts of money on really stupid wars? Just maybe?

By not spending ridiculous amounts of money on really stupid wars? Just maybe?

Oh I completely agree that foreign policy is the first thing we should fix to cut back on spending. But as of right now, the current cost of the war is about 400 billion and rising every second, and estimated to hit 1 trillion. Assuming we ended it right this second, that's still only a relatively small chunk of the deficit which is also rising every second. And remember, spidergoat's plan is far bigger in scope compared to what we have today.

Fixed per your suggestion with the Iraq war ending:

With 8 trillion in debt, a falling dollar, the middle class being squeezed out, how do we pay for an even bigger program?

Bankrupting, we're certainly getting there.

Medicare faces continuing financial issues. In its 2006 annual report to Congress, the Medicare Board of Trustees reported that the program's hospital insurance trust fund could run out of money by 2018. The trustees have made such projections in the past, but this one was bleaker than the outlook reported in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Criticism)

With 9 trillion in debt, a falling dollar, the middle class being squeezed out, how do we pay for an even bigger program?

Such notions are part of the big con game. France, Britain, Germany, and many other nations are able to provide college level education and health care. Simply take the profit out of the equation, and they become affordable.

Such notions are part of the big con game. France, Britain, Germany, and many other nations are able to provide college level education and health care. Simply take the profit out of the equation, and they become affordable.

Part of my game? I think I'm asking a legitimate question. Are other nations in the same situation we are? Running the biggest debt in the world, funding an army all over the globe, a currency that's falling, in a war that's estimated to hit $1 trillion in debt and no end in sight (unless you think any of the few people who said they're going to withdraw asap are going to get elected), etc.

We're in a unique situation concerning our budget and I think it's perfectly justifiable for me to ask whether or not we can afford good quality universal health care.

Sidenote: If I recall correctly, I'm pretty sure it was calculated that Britain's health care system is forecasted to run into a deficit.

Spider, you're more knowledgeable than I am on this issue. What do you think about Ron Paul's initiatives when it comes to heath care? I'm not trying to advocate them, or debate over them. I'd just like to hear your thoughts.

* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

By not spending ridiculous amounts of money on really stupid wars? Just maybe?We were in debt, and those programs were projected to go broke way before the Iraq war started. And wars, however expensive, eventually end. Social programs just go on and on and cost more and more money until they bankrupt the nation.

We're in a unique situation concerning our budget and I think it's perfectly justifiable for me to ask whether or not we can afford good quality universal health care.

What do you think about Ron Paul's initiatives when it comes to heath care?

* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.
That all sounds great, a hell of a lot better than some socialized system we can in no way afford.

Part of my game? I think I'm asking a legitimate question. Are other nations in the same situation we are? Running the biggest debt in the world, funding an army all over the globe, a currency that's falling, in a war that's estimated to hit $1 trillion in debt and no end in sight (unless you think any of the few people who said they're going to withdraw asap are going to get elected), etc.

We're in a unique situation concerning our budget and I think it's perfectly justifiable for me to ask whether or not we can afford good quality universal health care.

Sidenote: If I recall correctly, I'm pretty sure it was calculated that Britain's health care system is forecasted to run into a deficit.

Spider, you're more knowledgeable than I am on this issue. What do you think about Ron Paul's initiatives when it comes to heath care? I'm not trying to advocate them, or debate over them. I'd just like to hear your thoughts.

* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

The Republicans have always been against domestic programs like health care and anything more than basic education. Running up a massive dept is part of their plan to provide the justification for ending social programs. It's intentional. I don't believe you are intentionally misleading anyone, but you have bought into their flawed and fraudulent reasoning.

Ron Paul's plan is irresponsible and misguided.

* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
Make that patients, and I would agree. Still, it doesn't go far enough. There is no reason there should be any profit involved for the insurance companies. Why is that needed? Let the government set up it's own non-profit insurance plan.

Health savings accounts and tax deductions mean nothing if you don't have the money in the first place.

I think its a symptom of binary thinking, which almost always leads to poorly constructed and attributed stereotypes.
Its also pretty shocking the amount of people on here who believe socialism is the same thing as liberalism and the terms can be inter-changed at will.
If theres any salvation to be had i suggest a political dictionary would be a good place to start.

We were in debt, and those programs were projected to go broke way before the Iraq war started. And wars, however expensive, eventually end. Social programs just go on and on and cost more and more money until they bankrupt the nation.

That all sounds great, a hell of a lot better than some socialized system we can in no way afford.

um we can afford universal health care. In fact a source that linked said a universal health care system with cost controls would save us 1.1 trillion dollars. All countries that have universal health care spend less percapita so therefore if we cannot afford universal health care we cannot afford our current system.

The Republicans have always been against domestic programs like health care and anything more than basic education. Running up a massive dept is part of their plan to provide the justification for ending social programs. It's intentional. I don't believe you are intentionally misleading anyone, but you have bought into their flawed and fraudulent reasoning.

Repubicans intentionally run up a massive debt to end entitlement programs?? Is that sort of like how the Democrats try to defund the war because they hate the troops?

No seriously, you know I don't believe either of the two. But do you have something solid to back up that assertion? A statement by a GOP official? A written document outlining such a plan? Anything? Because all I see are two facts: 1. Some Republicans like to talk about ending entitlement programs. 2. We have a massive debt. How did you draw your conclusion from that?

If anything, the Democrats are as complicit in our fiscal situation as the Republicans. Are you suggesting they also want to end entitlement programs?

Yes, we were in such a fiscal crisis one wonders how we ever came up with the money for the wars. Apparently, the way to keep those programs from going broke is to allocate more funds. You know, like the ones we use for really stupid wars?

But we shouldn't have allocated the money for the wars like we did. We were already on the path to our current crisis before the war began, the war just happened to push us here faster. If instead we used that money for say universal health care, we'd have still ended up in the same crisis.

um we can afford universal health care. In fact a source that linked said a universal health care system with cost controls would save us 1.1 trillion dollars. All countries that have universal health care spend less percapita so therefore if we cannot afford universal health care we cannot afford our current system.

But that's the point. We can't afford our current system.

ashura, I don't know how you can't see the obvious. Accumulating a federal surplus would lead to the possibility of massive social change. Republicans believe that only defense spending is important. Under Clinton, we reversed the trend to increase debt.

Republicans believe that only defense spending is important.

C'mon, Spider, you know better than that! Why say such bullshit things when you know damned well they ain't true?

Baron Max

ashura, I don't know how you can't see the obvious. Accumulating a federal surplus would lead to the possibility of massive social change. Republicans believe that only defense spending is important. Under Clinton, we reversed the trend to increase debt.

I asked you for something other than assumptions. Accumulating a massive surplus can also mean tax cuts.

You stated that Republicans intentionally want to have a high debt as justification to end social programs. Evidence for such a statement?

(And again, Democrats contributed to our high debt as well)

If we spent the money with equal haste while constricting the revenue flow, yes. In other words, if we were equally irresponsible with healthcare as we have been for Bush policies, yeah, you're right, we would be in the same fix.

We couldn't have pulled off universal health care yet. We could have made progress, though.

No, I'm saying we would be in this situation no matter how that money was spent, as long as it was spent.

What do you think about Ron Paul's initiatives when it comes to heath care? They won't save a nickel of government expenditure.

How in hell do you think the government would save money by giving tax deductions for private medical expenditures ? By allowing private doctors to organize against the private insurance companies ?

We are currently spending twice as much as the average socialized system for a system that provides inferior coverage and damages our private economic competitiveness. It's a moronic situation, an idiotic joke of a setup.

We have arranged our socialized system, for example, so that a large proportion of people in their early sixties are postponing needed care until they qualify for it, and a large proportion of low income people are postponing care until they are forced into emergency rooms - thereby increasing the eventual cost of the care and damaging their health simulataneously. Higher costs, poorer care.

We have arranged our system so that the biggest purchasers of care - the various government agencies - are not allowed to negotiate volume discounts with drug companies, even drug companies marketing drugs substantially developed by government-funded research, and these drug companies are allowed to advertise more expensive drugs directly to patients who lack expertise in evaluating their suitability. Higher costs, poorer care.

We have arranged our system so that private coverage payers - private insurance companies - make money by setting up complex bureaucracies for refusing to cover more expensive patients, pre-existing conditions, preventive care, pregnancy, and other common circumstances - which we must then either neglect or cover by taxation, simultaneously paying for two bureaucracies and reducing the cost-reduction influence of market forces on the most expensive care. Higher costs, poorer care.

We have arranged our system so that optional and cosmetic medical services for the rich can outbid public health initiatives, disease treatment and prevention for the poor, and followup care for ordinary treatments, deflecting resources partly developed at public expense away from the areas of public need and reducing the return on public investment while bidding up the price of medical attention. Higher costs, poorer care.

And so forth.

One reason we are doing that is we have set up our political discourse in such a way that the sort of ideological nitwits who would rather spend twice as much on medical care for themselves - including multiple large government bureaucracies for veterans, children, poor people, old people, etc, to go with the large private bureaucracies for refusing care, etc - than include non-payers in their coverage system

are voting for representatives who have been coopted by those profiting on the status quo.