ikol

I think you have a problem detecting sarcasm. I can treat this condition by bombarding you with sarcastic comments, but it's gonna cost you.

No, it's because the government has eradicated homelessness. How about taking a significant portion of the upper income earners' tax burden and allowing them the option of either donating that money to a healthcare charity of their choice or it goes to the government? Sure, there are deductions on charitable donations, but there are limits on those and eventually the alternative minimum tax kicks in. But like half the nation pays no federal income taxes other than payroll taxes. The difference is that there's no healthcare reform bill that mandates a certain amount be taken out of

You could just read my post, but yes that's exactly what I said. Are some just plain ignorant? Probably. When high school health classes are taught by football coaches, there will inevitably be people out there that think Doritos are healthy. But are you suggesting that the majority of people that eat unhealthily do so because they aren't aware of what is healthy or are unable to afford healthy food? That is ridiculous. Even if you can only afford fast food and pre-packaged, processed food, you can still limit the quantity that you eat, which is 90% of the problem. You can't turn on a TV witho

My post didn't suggest that you advocated any of those scenarios. My point was that you could do all kinds of things to promote a healthy society, but there is a point where the ends don't justify the means. Obviously, that point is different for us. I guess she's all that and a box of chips.

OK, I guess since a healthy society is a burden worth carrying, we should also outlaw Doritos commercials. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Of course, I'm aware that there are nasty hyphenated sociology terms (or hyphen-nasty-sociological terms as I like to call them) that impact people's behavior. I'm also aware that people have (somewhat) rational minds and are capable of making (somewhat) rational decisions if they have the willpower.

No, I'm telling you that I don't think it would be enough to affect the crime rate very much. It would certainly help the small percentage that are highly motivated. If you're wanting to lower the crime rate, decriminalize drugs. You say that like charity is a lesser institution. There are many burdens we could assume to have a healthier society. We could make tobacco products illegal. We could enforce strict diets. We could make it illegal to have unprotected sex without first screening both partners for STDs. Somehow, I think a healthy society could be worse than a free society. A

Indeed that's not civilization, and it also happens to not be "my system." I suppose if a perfectly evil world adopted my system, you would be correct (though the same would be true if a perfectly evil world adopted socialism, Socialism, communism, Communism, capitalism...well you get the idea). But there are actually a lot of good people out there, and there is such a thing as charity. I am just not of the mentality that everything worth having should be provided by the government. Also, it's not as black and white as you portray it (and it pains me that the "conservative" is the one bringing

Many reasons: Because people utilize healthcare unequally. Because people treat their own bodies (regardless of what healthcare they have access to) unequally, and those decisions cost money. Because taxes are levied unequally. Because government coverage of healthcare (even if that coverage is simply paying for healthcare within a private system) inevitably leads to government control of healthcare. Because government cannot easily reduce the cost of healthcare, but they can instantly reduce the price they pay. Because my general philosophy is that the government should not exist to provide e

There's nothing pitiful about charity. It's far more noble than government entitlements. And enough with all this "ideological blinders" bullshit. I get it. You've obviously thought about the issues more than me and arrive at all your conclusions without letting those pesky pre-formed values and principles cloud your judgment. I'm sure that such unbiased and pragmatic thinking is what allows you to write with such condescension and pomposity. Well my situation right now is that I have at least 5 years of residency (funded by Medicare ironically enough) plus probably a couple more of fello

I don't know about their affect, because I can't see their facial expressions, and I also don't understand what your point is. I have ideologically-driven foglights, so I should be alright, plus I haven't forgotten that at all. My issue with Medicare is the public funding. Pay better attention! That might not be a bad idea, though I suspect they might spend most of the money on cigarettes. And I'm glad that you find my principles to be fine. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I brought this up the last time we had this debate here. As someone who has rotated through the VA several

That depends on where you work. If you own your own clinic, you can refuse Medicare, but if you work in a hospital that takes Medicare, you pretty much have to take it. I don't see the paradox. If there was a national referendum on Medicare, I would vote against it, but that's not a realistic situation. Medicare is not going anywhere, so if it is going to exist, it should reimburse doctors fairly. There's a difference between voluntarily donating your money to a charitable cause and paying for something with tax money that is not optional. I can decide what charity I want to donate to a

I am against Medicare in principle but recognize the reality that it exists and thus think it should reimburse fairly to the extent that it can. I would love to see Medicare abolished and replaced by private healthcare and charity, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. If it's going to be paying for a large percentage of healthcare, then it should pay physicians a fair price for their services. Doctors should not be overbooking their clinics just to stay open because Medicare arbitrarily tells them that their service is worth less than it actually is.

While we're getting our terminology straight, can we agree that the Wall Street bailout is not free market capitalism?

Except that in my example, the government (and one in which people do get to vote) is the problem. They refuse to increase Medicare reimbursements and in fact constantly advocate Medicare cuts (as they do in currently proposed healthcare reform legislation). So whatever your opinion is on how healthcare should be reformed, the proposed legislation will not result in more QT with physicians. In fact, it will likely result in many physicians retiring early, thus making the problem worse.

OK, but further government takeover of healthcare is a step in the direction of socialism. You may agree with that step -- and there are many well-intentioned, smart people on this board that have no problem with socialism -- but it is not inaccurate to say that the Democrats' healthcare reform proposals are socialist-leaning. Maybe the government is not explicitly owning the means of production as would be required for a strict definition of socialism, but controlling the way that healthcare is paid for has the same end result. Do you think that a family practice doctor that can barely cover

When I was your age.

That definitely applies to most politicians, including those in the "Hope! Change! Yes we can!" administration.

I think the fear of Palin being Vice President was a major reason that McCain lost the election. Apparently, people have forgotten that our nation has a time-honored tradition of being run by incompetent morons. Hell, most of the Obama administration can't even properly file an income tax return.

Given that we're talking about Massachusetts and not one of them red states, it's not like the constituency has some deep-seeded fear of socialism. Maybe there's a legitimate concern that is causing people to favor the Republican.

I never said ill-informed, and you apparently missed the sarcasm in my reply. I don't know much about Brown, so I have little to add, but "take back America" is no less vague of a platform than "hope, change, yes we can!". He's a politician. They always run on vague, emotionally-rooted slogans.

No, they're a fuckhead. Duh!

Some jobs require small hands. On a more serious note, the fact that people don't complain about all those other regulations is part of the problem. Sure they're all well-intentioned, but should the government really be dictating how many hours people are allowed to work? And every new regulation that gets added makes it that much harder to start up a small business, which gives yet another advantage to big businesses. I couldn't even imagine starting up a business. I would probably have to hire a lawyer to wade through all the regulations and red tape and would probably end up deciding it's

I couldn't care less. I'm certainly not gonna let whatever tool (right or left wing) that is in office ruin my Christmas.

The Immaculate Conception actually refers to Mary being conceived without any original sin. Thank you 9 years of Catholic school!

I hate to admit it, but this may actually be proof that there is no God.