wakluvit Wrote:Danno Wrote:Here's something to consider. More than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists â eight for each member of Congress â to influence health reform bills in 2009.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1953/">http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1953/</a><!-- m -->
There are two sides to every story. Unions have just as much, if not more influence on politics. They spend a lot of the money they collect from hard working union members to influence elections.
I think the fundamental difference I have on his healthcare reform is this -- I believe the government should lower my taxes so I can use that extra money to purchase the goods and services I want. The opposing sides is the government should expand and increase my taxes so I have to go to them for help. We are getting very close to over 50% of our population that doesn't pay any income taxes. This is a scary line to cross because they will also vote for more government since the get more from their government than they give.
Firstly, given only those two choices I'm with you intellectually but physically I'm with the government plan because I have seen no solutions for me from the opposing side. As far as I know they still favor insurance companies to exclude anyone they want to for whatever reason they want.
What you outline above is a manifestation of a failed system. That being mainly what would include the free market system. A system that has been manipulated by a few at the top, (research the history of how the Federal Reserve Bank, which is privately controlled, was created) mainly for power and monetary gain, who have been exploiting us for far too long. Yes, exploiting us like slaves. Better than slaves. Slave owners had the burden of housing and feeding theirs while these modern slave owners don't. This is not a theory that I came up with. It's a theory that has been analyzed and figured out by some very intelligent thinkers.
This system is destined to fail and is starting to bottom out because it is based on faulty principles which are not designed to be self-sustaining. It's like a parasite that kills it's host. It might seem that we only have a choice of one evil over another. On one hand you have a system that caters to poor people, people who may not even contribute anything at all to society, to the point that it is insulting to the people who pay to support it, to the point that people are rewarded for being non productive and/or poor. On the other hand you have a system that would push the poor aside to fend for themselves... natural law...eat or be eaten.
But we don't only have two choices. It is now known that, through the use of science and technology, humans can, for the first time in history, easily provide adequate sustenance... food, housing, clean water, adequate health care, etc., for the entire population of the world. It is also known that there are adequate resources to do this... thus the name of the system... "Resource Based Society". This Resource Based society would free people like they have never been freed before. The possibilities are mind boggling. Human society could progress exponentially. Take for instance, just the one issue of everyone on the planet having enough food and shelter. The ramifications of this are HUGE. It would represent, for the first time in human history, that mankind, as a whole, has risen up above the animal kingdom.
Don't believe for one second that we, the human species, are chained down by some faulty theory of misconstrued human nature, to be locked into the same dog eat dog way of life that we have been for eons. The possibilities for human progress are greater than we think.
's :?: