ihavenoidea

OMG who isnt for the removal of the IRS. I worked for that money, so let me have it. That has to be the worst argument for not voting Ron Paul. The guy wants you to keep your hard earned money instead of spending it to bomb 3rd world countries just so we can keep our gas a little bit cheaper.

__________________
Protector of the High Life

Trocisp

I never implied that I wanted you to tall me "your highness," although it does sound rather good.

Nor did I imply that you were a stupid shit. I think you're taking a debate a bit to personally. Step back and relax for a moment.

That's true, in theory, but states cannot afford to start a new programs in the way that the Federal Government can. The federal government gets income from Tariffs, where states do not, things like that. The federal government carries much more weight behind it's choices than the individual states do.

See, that's a question-of-disposition. It's in the hands of the accuser (you) to prove that the Federal Government is inefficient, not for me to prove it is.



Roads do not equal interstates.
That was sarcasm, wasn't it?
I'm not sure if you're aware, but I didn't say they weren't safe because they had multiple names, I said they weren't safe because they didn't have standardized safety precautions.

Read about this, and before they were implemented a convoy of army trucks tried to cross the country (a huge convoy) and many of the trucks got stuck, falling into the mud, and became almost impossible to retrieve. Many were just left there (and if you look, you can still see a few derelict army trucks by old dirt-roads that used to be highways).


Is this a response or just a cop-out because you don't want to reply?

I'll explain. In a Federal system, the pay for standardized opt-out health insurance would be 20% less (from the last economic report I read) if it was implemented on a Federal level. People could easily opt out, and get private health insurance, or states could pass health insurances of their own (either opt out or not... once again - if the states have a better idea, the federal government isn't preventing this).



Not really. There are multiple sources of income for the Federal Government that the State Governments don't have.

Tariffs, specific Taxes (certain portions of gas taxes, etc) - to name a few.



I'm not implying that Federalism is a bad idea, just that it should be accepted blindly. There are disadvantages to it, as well. Confederate states of America, anyone?


If it would work, reliably, I'd say there's nothing wrong with it.



I assure you, I'm not. He's won the GOP straw polls, by quite a bit.

Ron Paul has a shot at winning. And I don't have a problem with that. I just think that before he starts running (or even wins the nomination), the people should know who they're getting.

I'm not for the removal of the IRS. I accept the fact that if I want to live in a safe society I need to sacrifice part of my paycheck to help pay Policemen, Firemen, construction works (to pave roads), etc. I'm a pragmatist - I know that in an ideal world, I wouldn't have to pay taxes... but in this world, I do.

Also, I don't know where you're getting your information, but the War of Terror... erm, I'm sorry, War on Terror, hasn't lowered the price of gasoline or diesel at all. It's raised them, significantly.

imported_Blob

My argument against any socialized health care has to do with the overall behaviors of the entire population. The reason health care is such huge issue is because its so damn expensive, and its so expensive because this country is full of fat, lazy sloths. 65% of adults over 20 years are overweight, and 30% are obese. I take care of myself. I exercise five days a week and I keep myself healthy. I do not want to be put into a national risk pool (or state, for that matter) full of unhealthy people and carry the burden of their laziness with my tax dollars.

What you need is an insurance system that doesn't tie your health insurance to employment. Then I could more easily purchase my own insurance and be placed into risk pool with other healthy adults and I'll have cheap health care. Fat people, cigarette smokers, etc. can be placed in their higher risk pools and have expensive insurance. One of the first rules of economics: Incentives matter. Now that fatties have an incentive to lose weight (cheap insurance), many will lose weight because they'll be hit where hurts most - the wallet.

Basically what it comes down to is, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else poor choices

Higher Logic

Well, I was going to reply to Trocisp's original post, because it's really just innacurate. I'm not sure where you got that, it looks like some forwarded email or dribble on a website that you just pasted here. It's wrong though, and some of points are kind of just, "Well, duh, why would you want that anyways" type of thing. Besides, Plains did a good job debunking your post.

Anyways, on to this statement:

Whether you want to believe it or not, but you already pay for people's health insurance. Everyone receives emergency care whether they are insured or not, and you ultimately foot the bill. You also pay for a lot of things as the result of people who aren't insured, like people who miss work because they are sick.

Here's an interesting quote to end this reply:

"Finally, some suggest that when people without health insurance receive treatment, the cost of their care is passed along to the rest of us. This is undeniably true. Yet, it is a manageable problem. According to Jack Hadley and John Holahan of the left-leaning Urban Institute, uncompensated care for the uninsured amounts to less than 3% of total healthcare spending—a real cost, no doubt, but hardly a crisis."

Then again, maybe you're right. Why should I pay for things I never use. Law enforcement, firefighters, the postal service, highway system, etc. I should only have to pay for that if I really want it, and for those that don't pay for it, well a big fuck you to them!

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Jake

Tro, why do we even have states then? I mean shit...

__________________

Plainsman1963

And that's why I'm not hard core against Universal health care. We already pay taxes for universal things...law enforcement, highways...etc.

Trocisp

I think that's a silly statement, I in no way implied that the states were useless - just that they're less efficient in this scenario.

Higher Logic

They better serve the people when a state feels one way compared to another, instead of the Federal government deciding for everyone.

A prime example is the legality of marijuana. If the state's had their ways, we'd be looking at 10+ states that would either decriminalize or legalize marijuana, but they can't because federal law trumps state laws. That's NOT what the founding father's intended, and they understood the dangers of a "one law for all states" approach.

If one state decided that marijuana should remain illegal, then good for them. I sure as hell won't live there. They would quickly see from other states though that their method just doesn't work, and that's how it should work.

You could apply it to lots of black-and-white issues too, gay marriage, abortion, smoking cigarettes, etc. And speaking of cigarettes, you could take that a step further and compare it to federal-vs-state law. Why should a state decide for EVERY business about smoking? Why can't a bar decide that they don't care if people smoke, while another bar or restaurant can be completely against it?

...if you really want to know where Ron Paul stands, go here:

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trocisp

If you'll re-read, I've stated that I don't support a unilaterally powerful federal government, I just think that Medical care should be provided for all Americans, regardless of Economic status or location.

imported_Blob

Law enforcement, firefighters, highway systems, etc all provide me with very important services. Law enforcement and firefighters constantly help me indirectly by reducing crime and protecting infrastructure from fire damage. And, similarly to insurance, they will be there (maybe depending on the area) when I need them most, like when I'm personally being robbed or MY house is on fire. Anyway, law enforcement is necessary in a society with a property-based legal system. There needs to be an entity that protects a private individual's property rights.

Also, why would you, a pot smoker, trust the government to use your tax dollar to its maximum potential? They are masters of inefficiency, and just look at the way they treat our veterans. It would be best for the government to tax you less and give you freedom (and more of your own hard-earned money) to buy your own health insurance from private companies, if you want to. Companies compete, trying to out-do other companies in price and services provided. This means lower health care costs and better health care over all.

Lastly, you must always be weary of the government, especially in these times. A government that gives you everything, can also take everything from you. You DO NOT want to give government more power.