Obama Care

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Joe, I'm not sure Saden is suggesting that the only thing necessary for government intervention to work is "more money". Your arguments are solid, but that part weakens it.

Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.

Originally Posted by saden1

I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can['t] do this. I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made.

Howeever, and ultimately, whether it is employing individuals to "negotiate better drug prices" or to manipulate costs "through the power of sheer numbers of patients", governmental resources cost someone something. (Further, I would suggest, when he does actually define a position, saden requires the influx of governmental funds in some form or another).

Whether it is through the cutting off of other services or the raising of new revenue, governments rely on money to provide the public sector with goods and services. Without money government cannot act, without action governments can't solve anything. Thus, regardless of how he cuts it, Saden's position that governmental action can solve health care's ills -regardless of the existing market forces - boils done to a requirement that government spend money - lots of it. Further, it is a leap of faith that if we just spend enough money, marshall enough resources, government intervention can - not just solve the problem - but create a world better than our current situation regardless of private interests.

Ultimately, saden applies the age old cruelty of socialism - if we trust in the corporate whole, all will be well even if a few individuals are injured along the way. In this particular case, the individuals are likely to be our children.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.

I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, a government is made up of people, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, a government is made up of people, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).

I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

Good, benign government and economic can occur in any almost any form if "good" people are running it. I believe, however, that republican (small r) democracy (small d) with a properly regulated free enterpise economy is the most conducive to allowing such people to govern. Ultimately, government is based on the people that encompass it. It is merely our corporate tool to protect and serve, how we the people choose to govern and share/use our individual/corporate resources is ultimately a human choice.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.

Most people who volunteer their time do so because it brings them self satisfaction of helping others.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or be you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or be you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

Holy cow man there may be no hope for you. I don't think you get it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or be you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

Too much philosophizing dog. I don't think you're dealing with the ego so much as the id....these folks are concerned with keeping more of their money.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Self-interest is a product of the ego. You are not your ego -- it is separate from who you are, and it is a product of your mind. If you disagree, ask yourself: if you lose all your possessions are you any less? Your ego would say yes, because it identifies with forms. But if you are conscious, even in the slightest bit, you will understand why that is untrue. Perhaps you are totally unconscious. It is a plague that permeates mankind, so I wouldn't be surprised. However, I have hope that people will eventually awaken from their unconsciousness and be free of egoic thinking.

We are not, "driven by our own unconscious thinking," -- you are either driven by conscious thought, or by your ego (if you are unconscious). Since I suspect you are totally unconscious, I can understand why you think the ego is uncontrollable -- it has become you.

Conscious thinking is to be aware of your ego, and not let it control you (or be you, if you will). Do you think it is impossible to deny your ego? Would you be afraid of the results?

Jesus said, "Deny thyself." What do you think he meant?

Taking some psychology courses are we? I didn't take too many of those, psycho-babble was never a big interest of mine, just an easy grade. But I thought the Ego was basically the balance between the Id & the SuperEgo. The Id was the "basic instinct" and the Super-Ego was the "conscience" or moral compass. The Ego was the balance in the real world between the two. I guess Psych classes have changed a bit.

And I don't think Jesus was referencing Freud. He was letting people know that if they wished to follow Him into the kingdom of Heaven they had to put God and Jesus' two commandments before their own selfish desires. I would also argue that Jesus is no fan of Communism seeing as Communists believe Jesus is just a figment of the stressed human imagination.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

Now your getting it! And understand there will NEVER be a thought process shift in humanity like you mention. Don't forget, Communism was tried and failed miserably and left millions dead in its wake (Soviet Union, Cambodia, China).

The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Now your getting it! And understand there will NEVER be a thought process shift in humanity like you mention. Don't forget, Communism was tried and failed miserably and left millions dead in its wake (Soviet Union, Cambodia, China).

The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never? I can tell you're old.

Just because you would rather consider yourself before others, doesn't mean everyone does (or will continue to).

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Never? I can tell you're old.

Just because you would rather consider yourself before others, doesn't mean everyone does (or will continue to).

And us "old folks" find the term "old" offensive. I thought you youthful idealists soaking up the wonderful radical left-wing, anti-U.S. propaganda from the pot-smoking, hippie, anti-war college professors would've had a course or two on Political Correctness and learned the proper term to describe us is "experienced". J/K

Anyway, I make my statement based on the historical fact that men have always sought to dominate/control other men for their own gain. In reality, not theory, Communism dictates rights come from the "state" (other men). These men are subject to human failings and we see what happens (my previous post, 94M dead). This wonderful experiment in democracy and the belief that all men have rights not given by other men, but by God, is currently the greatest force for freedom from government oppression the world has ever seen. Once you've "experienced" a bit more of life I'm sure you'll be a great voice for democracy and conservatism.

Haven't you heard the quote; "If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you aren't conservative at 40 you have no brain".