Questions for US folks

[Anime Daisuki]

For starters, I'm not an American and I don't vote. If you have to classify my political leanings, it is economic conservative - social neutral. (I am socially liberal on some issues like immigration, women's right to abortion, but conservative on others like Gay marriage, marijuana, and most law-and-order issues).

Having been in the US for 6 years now, and bearing witness to the Bush-orchestrated Iraq war and now the Healthcare debate, I've been posing the following questions to my American friends. Since the Debate Hall has been lacking in new topics of late, I thought I'll share them here as well.


Some questions for discussion:

- How can you be a pro-lifer, if you support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? (And no, they are not two different matters, a life is a life is a life, whether it is a fetus or an Iraqi native, both are living beings).

- How can you be pro-individual rights, when you support tapping phones and listening into your citizens?

- How can you give people "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not give them the right to health care, and hence
the right to life itself?

I would love to find out.

[Bad Infinitum]

I had a really elaborate response all set up for this, but then I realized that it made it look like I was defending the way things are. I don't agree that the way things are is the way things should be, so I deleted it.

And now I, too, am curious about other people's responses to these questions.

[Grub]

These are all good questions and individual threads for each would probably give them more justice, but here is my 30 second response to a couple.

Wars vs. abortion. - Babies or fetuses are under the control of the mother. When an abortion is performed is intent of the act by the mother is to kill the innocent fetus. With war, there is a reason for the war i.e. Afghanistan taking out the Taliban & the training area for people who organized the 9/11 attacks. If innocent people are killed in the crossfire that is regrettable, but it does happen in all wars. The act of killing the innocent people is not the intent of the war rather than a consequence. If fetuses had organized 9/11 from about 20 wombs I would be for the abortion of those fetuses.

With "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I am all for that, but the founders of the US didn't create health care as a right. Health care isn't a right. It's a good thing to have it, but the founding fathers of the US wanted limited government and not a fiscally unsound public policy that would not only provide suspect health care, but would also jeopardize the financial stability of the United States. BTW, this will also increase taxes. Check out this article about the inflation tax index - online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511794170939688.html

[SovietPrussia]

I know I'm not an American, but I can't help but take part in the fun. ;D

With "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I am all for that, but the founders of the US didn't create health care as a right. Health care isn't a right. It's a good thing to have it, but the founding fathers of the US wanted limited government and not a fiscally unsound public policy that would not only provide suspect health care, but would also jeopardize the financial stability of the United States. BTW, this will also increase taxes. Check out this article about the inflation tax index - online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511794170939688.html

Well remember that no country in the late 18th century had any form of state welfare for its people. The industrial revolution was only just beginning and Smithian economics was a brand new idea. The founding fathers lived in a completely different era.

Here in Britain, the Liberal Reforms of the early 20th century and the introduction of the NHS most certainly didn't make a mess of the country.

And finally, not all taxes are inflation taxes. And besides, even without public healthcare and without the high taxes that come with it, the US was not financially stable. Even before the Great Recession the defecit and public debt were out of control. Now if military spending was cut to a more reasonable level, the budget would be in a much better state; even if some of that went into government-funded healthcare.

[Estayland]

Here are my quick hit responses.

I agree with Grub on war vs. pro life.

Our bill of rights guarantees no search and seizure unless there is a warrant for such. I support wiretaps on citizens and legal residents but only with warrants.

Currently, any American can go to a hospital ER to get treatment without ability to pay. This is a rule created by our judiciary system. Go to an ER, and there will be a sign that says such. There are also a lot of charity hospitals in America.

Too many rights are becoming privileges, and privileges are becoming rights. For instance: there are some that will say "STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM! MY SEXUAL LIFE IS MY BUSINESS!" but are willing to let the government control what they eat, what kind of light bulbs they use, or what kind of car they drive.

[SovietPrussia]

Not necessarily. Is there a logical reason why the people worried about their privacy would support restrictions on light bulbs, cars, food, etc?

Sure, there are definetely some who believe both, but assuming that everyone who believes one must believe the other too doesn't make sense.

I seriously doubt there's anyone who 100% fits in with either of these:

[Hockeynutville]

Nov 10, 2009 2:32:31 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

Some questions for discussion:

- How can you be a pro-lifer, if you support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? (And no, they are not two different matters, a life is a life is a life, whether it is a fetus or an Iraqi native, both are living beings).

I like the question. In ways, I do agree with Grub's response in that there are differences between abortions and civilian casualties in a war to where motives and politics is concerned. The act of killing is the same no matter where or how it's done.

The way I see the question, is how can you be pro-life in one aspect i.e. abortion and then against it in another i.e. the right to health care? To me it makes little sense that the idea is that the baby is sacred until it comes out of the womb and then suddenly it's on it's own and if it can't get adequate health care, oh well too bad so sad.

I am pro-choice which means I am for abortion, gay-rights, etc... Now just because I am for abortion doesn't mean I am some sort of raving psychopath because I don't hold human life sacred. I believe in the idea that my body is mine and that no one has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with it. In all the talk of keeping government out of our business, I certainly find offense in people I have never met or don't know telling me that the choices I make regarding my own physical body are right or wrong.

Ultimately we make our own choices, some that are on par with the status quo, some that are completely out of right field. I may not agree with everyone's personal choice's and decision but I respect the fact that it is there's to make and no one else's.

[CCBlue]

Hi. I am not American either but I would like to chip my four penneth in if I may. I also live in the UK where things are not perfect.

Pro life versus war. I couldn't agree more that they are completely different and cant add anything sensible that others have not said other than this for the argument against Pro life against choice of the individual and their families. The scenario I would say eliminates this is a child or woman being raped and being impregnated and having to carry the child to birth rather than being given the choice to terminate.

In the UK we have a National Heath Service as does Canada, France and Cuba. i would recommend everyone watches Micheal Mann's film SICKO, and if you are still against National Heath cover for your citizens and especially heroes of 9/11 after watching I would love to hear why.

[Fredrikshamn]

to answer all your questions I will submit this: as Americans we have that lil ole' document called the Constitution. Now since the inception of our nation various courts have made rulings on this and that leaving that grand ole' document up to interpertation. Now, to answer your question(s) I say this: We have rights as Americans but very few of wish to take responsiblity for those said rights. Meaning- we want and expect rarely do we give and accept.

If that makes sense cause it did in my head... haha

[Inquirius]

Nov 10, 2009 2:32:31 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

- How can you give people "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not give them the right to health care, and hence
the right to life itself?

Our current attempt at instituting a public health insurance option is not the solution it's being made out to be. Fiscal matters aside, we do not have enough primary care physicians to take the extra load. Under the public option, the majority of physicians will see another hefty pay cut and added bureaucratic responsibilities, reducing the chances that current medical students will choose primary care. It isn't like we are purposely withholding health care.

This system needs to be fixed more slowly. One or two pieces of legislation will not revolutionize our health care. I cannot shake the feeling that Obama merely wants to cement his legacy as the one who reformed American health care; he is not overly concerned with the details. Unfortunately, doctors, nurses, and pharmaceutical companies are the ones who have to work out the details, and from the signs I am seeing, the future looks bleak for the American physician if this health care thing is passed.


As for all that other stuff...I am pro-choice because that just makes sense. However, I am also for destroying the psychotic Islam-driven terrorist organizations. I don't really see a link between those two issues. As long as a fetus is inside the mother, the mother is my primary concern; if she is concerned about the fetus, then the fetus becomes my concern. The baby is leeching off of her; it is her choice to decide whether to allow it to happen. I didn't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...but we have dealt a crippling blow to terrorist organizations in Mesopotamia. Some good has come out of it.

[Twobagger]

Nov 10, 2009 2:32:31 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

Some questions for discussion:

- How can you be a pro-lifer, if you support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? (And no, they are not two different matters, a life is a life is a life, whether it is a fetus or an Iraqi native, both are living beings).

- How can you be pro-individual rights, when you support tapping phones and listening into your citizens?

- How can you give people "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not give them the right to health care, and hence
the right to life itself?

For the first question, I think Grub has it right that the difference is in intent. The mother (for whatever reason) intends to kill the unborn child for whatever reason, while wars are generally not fought for the sole purpose of killing people. You could make the argument that the mother intends to do something else (say, relieve a source of financial/physical/emotional hardship) and that killing the unborn child is just a byproduct of going in that direction, but that's really neither here nor there.

For the second question, I think Estay gets it right when he relates wiretapping and the like to search and seizure laws. It's really difficult to justify wiretapping unless you do have a warrant, but once you have that warrant then you can start to make a case for it.

I think for the third question you mean to ask about health insurance. I think that hospitals are forbidden from turning away patients that need emergency treatment to live, so it would appear that people to some extent already do have a right to health care. Health insurance, on the other hand, is a service and not a right. I don't feel that people have a right to health insurance any more than they have a right to car insurance or really most other non-essential services.

[Walabamba]

One question, can I have the percentage of people who are fat rednecks down there?

[The Colonial Fleet]

While I like the quote of one Republican politician who said: “While I believe that life begins at conception, in my government it doesn’t end at birth either,” too bad it wasn't true.

The US is a nation where 45 000 people die from being unable to afford proper medical attention, not the unavailability of organs, but not actually being given medical care due to interference by insurance companies or just being unable to cough up the cash. This doesn't even take into account the amount of people driven into bankruptcy for the sin of needing medical care. Even if the current bill gets through the Senate it's already so watered down to be anything but Universal Healthcare.

What many people don't seem to be able to grasp is that the US taxpayer pays way more for a free market healthcare system than they would for a government run healthcare system. The idea that it would cost more is insane. The fact that the US taxpayer is being fleeced as much as they currently are is even more insane. The reason why for profit healthcare costs more is the whole for profit thing. These hospitals and clinics have shareholders who want a return on their investment. So basically taxpayers are paying more than they would for Universal Healthcare and getting nothing, because they then have to pay a weaselly insurance company on top of that.

[The Colonial Fleet]

Nov 10, 2009 18:49:42 GMT -5 Twobagger said:

Nov 10, 2009 2:32:31 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

I think for the third question you mean to ask about health insurance. I think that hospitals are forbidden from turning away patients that need emergency treatment to live, so it would appear that people to some extent already do have a right to health care. Health insurance, on the other hand, is a service and not a right. I don't feel that people have a right to health insurance any more than they have a right to car insurance or really most other non-essential services.

Hospitals have been caught dumping patients on the streets in US cities for a long time now. It's illegal but it's not as uncommon as people would like to think. People lacking money are bad for their bottom line.

[Noyzistan]

The health care thing kinda sounds like "you can eat your fill of all the food you bring yourself."

[Ananke II]

Nov 10, 2009 11:30:18 GMT -5 Grub said:

BTW, this will also increase taxes.

I don't really get this argument against Universal healthcare. It probably will get you more official taxes, but the way your healthcare system is right now you still pay for the healthcare, just to private insurance companies, who try to cheat their customers out of compensation whenever possible.

So, if you're going to pay for healthcare no matter what, why is it such a dealbreaker to pay for it over your taxes?

[Estayland]

Nov 10, 2009 19:42:38 GMT -5 Walabamba said:

One question, can I have the percentage of people who are fat rednecks down there?

That is quite insensitive. What is your problem?

[Walabamba]

Sorry, meant to be a joke, I didn't mean to insult anyone.

[Hockeynutville]

Alright, I've got one.


I'm currently in the US and certainly national security is always a huge topic, especially since 9/11. I think the most visible area affected has been at airports. Certainly at any border crossing in to the States now it is quite the interrogation, even for American Citizens coming back into the country.

Right now I think of these things as annoying inconveniences and now I'm more liable to take a vacation at home than go abroad to avoid the hassle. I do understand why these precautions are in place and since 9/11 there have been no major Terrorist attacks in the country i.e. airplane hijackings, car bombs, etc...

I am curious to here your opinion of the more invasive nature in to personal rights and whether you think it is acceptable, necessary and prudent or whether you believe the government is starting to overstep some boundries and believe that this is only the beginning?

[Chronopolice]

Nov 10, 2009 2:32:31 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

For starters, I'm not an American and I don't vote. If you have to classify my political leanings, it is economic conservative - social neutral. (I am socially liberal on some issues like immigration, women's right to abortion, but conservative on others like Gay marriage, marijuana, and most law-and-order issues).

Having been in the US for 6 years now, and bearing witness to the Bush-orchestrated Iraq war and now the Healthcare debate, I've been posing the following questions to my American friends. Since the Debate Hall has been lacking in new topics of late, I thought I'll share them here as well.


Some questions for discussion:

- How can you be a pro-lifer, if you support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? (And no, they are not two different matters, a life is a life is a life, whether it is a fetus or an Iraqi native, both are living beings).

- How can you be pro-individual rights, when you support tapping phones and listening into your citizens?

- How can you give people "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not give them the right to health care, and hence
the right to life itself?

I would love to find out.

I have no questions for the first two points. Even though I am not a US citizen, we share a lot of values with the US.

The last point raised by Anime is what confounds me the most. Let me add this question to it.

Why is there much disdain over a program that will eventually benefit every single US citizen?

[Bad Infinitum]

Nov 11, 2009 14:00:03 GMT -5 Chronopolice said:

Why is there much disdain over a program that will eventually benefit every single US citizen?

Because people who can afford their own health care like to feel that they're better than people who can't. Elitists hate equality.

[Estayland]

HNV: airport security has become more of a nuisance than a benefit. It really needs to be reworked.

PAI: Equal rights one thing. Equal success is another. if everyone was completely equal, we would have to go to the lowest common denominator. That way, we can all be miserable equally. Please read Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron."

Instead of giving handouts, let's give them opportunity to make themselves better so they can afford health care. Make them uncomfortable in their poverty and they will make themselves better.

[Bad Infinitum]

Nov 11, 2009 14:17:09 GMT -5 Estayland said:

PAI: Equal rights one thing. Equal success is another. if everyone was completely equal, we would have to go to the lowest common denominator. That way, we can all be miserable equally. Please read Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron."

Wait, really? How is good health not a right? A person's basic physical needs should have nothing to do with that person's economic status. I know that without the VA, I wouldn't be able to afford my own health care after I leave my job next month. Just because I made minimum wage for the past seven years, does that mean I don't deserve to go see the doctor any more?

Nov 11, 2009 14:17:09 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Instead of giving handouts, let's give them opportunity to make themselves better so they can afford health care. Make them uncomfortable in their poverty and they will make themselves better.

Ah, the classic "smoke 'em out" tactic. Make the slums an even bigger nutshole, and they'll take it upon themselves to rebuild their lives, right? That isn't how it works. They're living in squander because of several reasons... maybe they're incapable, mentally or physically, to be employed. Perhaps they are happy where they are. Maybe they've taken up a religious vow of poverty. These people, especially the last two categories, are some of the best people you will ever meet. Maybe they don't know which fork to use first, or maybe they don't own property, but that doesn't make them any less human, and thus, less deserving.

The idea that all men are created equal and then they're on their own to determine just how equal they actually are is absurd. I really hate to see the greed and corruption of our society completely devouring common decency and charity.

[SovietPrussia]

Nov 11, 2009 14:17:09 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Instead of giving handouts, let's give them opportunity to make themselves better so they can afford health care. Make them uncomfortable in their poverty and they will make themselves better.

Well explain the Victorian working class then. They worked long hours in awful conditions and still lived in disgraceful poverty until governments actually started providing for their basic welfare.

I'm all for opportunity, and I do believe that if Person A works hard in life, and Person B doesn't, Person A deserves the better quality of life. But even Person B doesn't deserve to starve or die of some easily preventable disease. They're still a human being. And what about Person B's children? Do they deserve to live in poverty for their parents' mistakes? If they rely on their parents for financing their studies rather than the state, it doesn't really matter how dedicated to self-betterment they are, they still won't be able to afford a high quality education.

[Anime Daisuki]

To Ananke, Grub, and others talking about taxes.

The central problem is about priorities.

Non-US nations like Europe, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and other OECD countries (which includes almost all developed nations) can AFFORD universal healthcare because they don't spend an obscene amount of their tax dollars on 'national defense'.

You cannot be a global-policeman, spend trillions every year on a supersized army, with bases all across the world, 10 carrier task forces, and billions more in aid to prop-up war-torn nations like Iraq and Afghanistan --- and still expect to be a welfare state (on health care). There's just not enough tax dollars to go around doing both. It's not rocket science, its simple accounting.

The priority of the US government, from my observation, is attaining and maintaining power. Other governments (such as Europe), places more emphasis on health, education, and other quality of life issues. But of course, many of them don't have to spend on their military precisely because the US is already defending them.

[Grub]

For AI, you said

"Because people who can afford their own health care like to feel that they're better than people who can't. Elitists hate equality."

I may have read that wrong, but I think you are missing the main issue. What this really comes down to is what is the role of the government. Do we really want a government that basically decides many key issues for us while taking away our freedom of choice? If health care is passed, despite what they say, it will eventually kill off the free market for health care & roughly 17% of the GDP of the US will be socialized. There are ways to make things better rather than socializing 17% of the American economy. The United States didn't rise to power because of socialism. God bless Ananke and our friends in Europe, but keep that stuff over there; we don't want it.

[MinnaCaroline]

Nov 11, 2009 14:17:09 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Instead of giving handouts, let's give them opportunity to make themselves better so they can afford health care. Make them uncomfortable in their poverty and they will make themselves better.

Not Necessarily. Our neighbor 2 doors down rented his house out to a lady who was section 8 with two kids my kid's ages. It was a nightmare from the minute they moved in.

We live in a very nice suburb of DC and this woman comes in and instead of thinking 'hey this is a nice neighborhood, I'm getting a 2nd chance to make things right' she caused nothing but trouble for the entire neighborhood from day one.

I felt so bad for the children, one little boy had scars that looked like permanent tear drops on his cheeks and his older brother had a scar running from the back to the front of his head. They threatened my children more than once, I stopped letting my kids play outside.

The police were called every other day literally because of noise complaints from 11pm to 2am almost daily. They destroyed the house.

My other neighbor had an interesting conversation with the mother, my neighbor said to her "you're given this opportunity from the government to live in a better neighborhood to give your kids the chance to go to a good school, why don't you even try to better yourself?" The lady's response "oh you don't care about me, all you care about is taking your kid to his soccer games and washing your car."

I never understood it, one night my husband and I were woken out of a sound sleep to knocking on our own door, seems our neighbor had given out the wrong address by mistake for the noise and boy did the police officer look confused when he peaked in our silent house at 2am!

Some people don't want to be helped and some people are too comfortable in their own poverty to even try.

[Chronopolice]

Nov 11, 2009 22:32:27 GMT -5 MinnaCaroline said:

Nov 11, 2009 14:17:09 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Instead of giving handouts, let's give them opportunity to make themselves better so they can afford health care. Make them uncomfortable in their poverty and they will make themselves better.

Not Necessarily. Our neighbor 2 doors down rented his house out to a lady who was section 8 with two kids my kid's ages. It was a nightmare from the minute they moved in.

We live in a very nice suburb of DC and this woman comes in and instead of thinking 'hey this is a nice neighborhood, I'm getting a 2nd chance to make things right' she caused nothing but trouble for the entire neighborhood from day one.

I felt so bad for the children, one little boy had scars that looked like permanent tear drops on his cheeks and his older brother had a scar running from the back to the front of his head. They threatened my children more than once, I stopped letting my kids play outside.

The police were called every other day literally because of noise complaints from 11pm to 2am almost daily. They destroyed the house.

My other neighbor had an interesting conversation with the mother, my neighbor said to her "you're given this opportunity from the government to live in a better neighborhood to give your kids the chance to go to a good school, why don't you even try to better yourself?" The lady's response "oh you don't care about me, all you care about is taking your kid to his soccer games and washing your car."

I never understood it, one night my husband and I were woken out of a sound sleep to knocking on our own door, seems our neighbor had given out the wrong address by mistake for the noise and boy did the police officer look confused when he peaked in our silent house at 2am!

Some people don't want to be helped and some people are too comfortable in their own poverty to even try.

That's the worst kind of people to have as neighbors Minna. Poor in wealth and lacking in wisdom.

[Chronopolice]

Nov 11, 2009 22:11:16 GMT -5 Grub said:

For AI, you said

"Because people who can afford their own health care like to feel that they're better than people who can't. Elitists hate equality."

I may have read that wrong, but I think you are missing the main issue. What this really comes down to is what is the role of the government. Do we really want a government that basically decides many key issues for us while taking away our freedom of choice? If health care is passed, despite what they say, it will eventually kill off the free market for health care & roughly 17% of the GDP of the US will be socialized. There are ways to make things better rather than socializing 17% of the American economy. The United States didn't rise to power because of socialism. God bless Ananke and our friends in Europe, but keep that stuff over there; we don't want it.

But it is ok to save huge failing corporations? That's also socialism but in a different (and more dangerous) guise sir.

[SovietPrussia]

Nov 11, 2009 22:11:16 GMT -5 Grub said:

For AI, you said

"Because people who can afford their own health care like to feel that they're better than people who can't. Elitists hate equality."

I may have read that wrong, but I think you are missing the main issue. What this really comes down to is what is the role of the government. Do we really want a government that basically decides many key issues for us while taking away our freedom of choice? If health care is passed, despite what they say, it will eventually kill off the free market for health care & roughly 17% of the GDP of the US will be socialized. There are ways to make things better rather than socializing 17% of the American economy. The United States didn't rise to power because of socialism. God bless Ananke and our friends in Europe, but keep that stuff over there; we don't want it.

But at the end of the day, you'll have a good quality and cheap healthcare system affordable to all. A government's function is to serve its people. Getting adequete medical attention is fundemental to human dignity. There are frankly more important things than overall GDP figures. Wealth creation is great, but what's the point in having all that wealth circulating in the economy if people are spending a large chunk of their earnings on their health provisioning instead of consumer goods?