Culturally Appropirate Health-Care

Bravo! ;-)

I'll second that motion!!

Rudy

Your culture doesn't count.

Everyone knows white men don't have a culture.

Your culture doesn't exist.

I am forced to pay for Don's health care, as a matter of fact, particularly if he doesn't carry health insurance. In my culture, sick people rarely die in the street, and I've yet to meet the sick person dying in a street who'll refuse needed health care, so I suppose the free riders should stop whining and carry adequate insurance. If they don't, I have no serious problem with forcing them to carry it. I don't have a serious problem with mandatory auto liability insurance either. Forcing men not to cross lines in the sand without a proprietor's consent is not the only legitimate force and never has been and never could be.

Don,

I am a country boy, Don. I grew up under hard country rules.

My first career was hard core, I matured under hard rules. That is why I am so fiercely individualist.

Are you prepared to see those who do not and will not make provisions for themselves, and live their lifes under the assumption that when the time comes some one else will pick up the tab, be left to die at their convenience?

I am an individualist, are you really one sir?

Are there any other indiviudalists out there?

Isn't it time we got our heads out of our own asses and looked around and examined our own statements and stated beliefs?

If one states a belief in indiviudaulism and self sufficiency then shouldn't one be prepared to see a neighbor, who refused a like belief, die of his own decisions or lack thereof?

I am. I can stand at his graveside and say, "Shame, he should have taken better care of himself.", and feel pity for his loved ones, but feel no remorse.

Life is what it is and nature is what it is, and I am nature.

Can anyone but me imagine how few problems we as a society would have if we simply let people live and die by their own decisions and acts?

Screw socialism.

Bravo Don and vidyohs!!!!

If one states a belief in individualism and self sufficiency then shouldn't one be prepared to see a neighbor, who refused a like belief, die of his own decisions or lack thereof?

Individualism is not only the right to choose one's own course in life. It's also the obligation to carry one's own weight, and I favor this obligation, but I see no virtue in watching a sick man die because he has no health insurance on the dubious grounds that he should have known better, nor do I expect a humane culture to operate so, nor do I live in such a culture as a practical matter.

If you want to be a rugged individualist, that's fine with me. I'll have nothing to do with any enforcement of your claims, and I'll help myself to any parcel of land you choose to piss around and anything I might freely gather there, just as almighty God intended. Stop me if you can but don't go whining to your neighbors. Why should they bother themselves with your claims? They have their own to defend.

That's the ultimate, individualist state of nature. If you want it, it's still out there.

I agree with you, Don. But, boy, was this a bizarre reason to riff on the phrase, "culturally appropriate health care". The relevance to your point being very much a stretch. I mean, c'mon, you can do better than this!

Yes! I love it! Another winner Don !!!

Collectivist Brock admitting that he's a thief at heart with no regard for anyone else's property.

Know this, Martin Burgler, if you see no virtue in watching the sick man die [be it that he didn't plan his own finances or thought he could free-ride on someone elses], then, by all means, put your money where your soupcooler is and pony up with your big & bad altrustic self. Just leave me and the other individualists out of it if we choose not to go along, you moralizing prick!

And if you do come after me? Well, you better bring the weapons you soft-at-heart-but-stealthy-pickpocketer, because I'm a four-time Marine Corps Rifle Expert with the M-16 and can put a round in a man-sized siloette from 500+ meters. We'll play, Mugger Brock, if you wish to. You want my home address?

Lowcountryjoe,

Bravo.

Bravo, Lowcountry Joe.

With people like you in this society, Mr Brock's lack of respect for property rights suggests that it's just a matter of time before he disappears from this forum.

Wait a minute Joe, Martin is for killing the sick:

<< should stop whining and carry adequate insurance. If they don't, I have no serious problem with forcing them to carry it>>

See, he thinks they should carry their own insurance or they should be shot.

I know, Martin can't follow out the logic there, in that the shooting only occurs after the sick indigent refuse to pay, and then refuses the sherriff when he shows up at his door to aution off his stuff.

But Martin is clearly in the camp of killing the sickly poor.

Collectivist Brock admitting that he's a thief at heart with no regard for anyone else's property.

Simple nonsense. Property itself is a collectivist obligation of others to respect your lawful claims. The obligation to carry reasonable health insurance is itself a property (proper obligation) of the individual.

Know this, Martin Burgler, ...

You see theft only in the force you advocate to defend your immediate claims. You choose to see no theft in your refusal to bear the cost of your own risk of injury or ill health.

... if you see no virtue in watching the sick man die ...

And you do, I suppose. How noble your values are.

[be it that he didn't plan his own finances or thought he could free-ride on someone elses], ...

Well, that's what you do when you demand a "right" to take this free ride yourself. If you demand no such right, I don't understand your objection.

... put your money where your soupcooler is and pony up with your big & bad altrustic self.

No. I'd rather not pay for your free ride. I'd rather compel you to be responsible for yourself here and now.

... I'm a four-time Marine Corps Rifle Expert with the M-16 ...

The state of nature suits you well. So what are you bitching about?

In reality, you'll march with your collective to defend the will of armed men all the while you parade this facile and laughably inconsistent "individualism". It's nauseating. You want my address? Look it up. I'm using my real name here, Country Boy.

See, he thinks they should carry their own insurance or they should be shot.

Well, there are many forcible measures short of shooting people. We don't shoot many jay walkers or shop lifters or even trespassers these days. Is that what you're suggesting? Or maybe you'd like to cut their hands off? Or would you simply defend your individual claims solely against competing, individual claims? Are you really the "individualist" you pretend to be?

No. You're just another bullshit artist, like the rest of the politicians. It's all about "individualism" vs. "collectivism" until we get around to the "collectivism" you'll join in coercing yourself.

OK, enough of this individualist vs. collectivist tripe. Does anyone care to take on the real point of the Prof's letter, which is that "culturally appropriate" health care is just a laughable idea?

I concede your point Martin. If they don't buy insurance, we could do like Hans Brinks did to Kim Jon Il in "Team America, World Police"

"If you don't cease producing nuclear devices we will be forced to write you a stern letter and if you still don't stop we will be forced to write you another one!"

toggling sarcasm off; I actually don't follow how it is relevant that people who have sucessfully shoplifted or jaywalked were stopped by a law. I think that you made the point that a law un-backed up is pretty worthless to the lawbreaker.

And you do, I suppose. How noble your values are.

Your judgment of LCJ's values is completely irrelevant. Your "values" of coercing people into insurance schemes of your choosing are far less "noble", IMO. So what?

Martin, in Louisiana, where I live, as far a tresspassing goes, you only prosecute the survivors.

Martin said:

"...I see no virtue in watching a sick man die because he has no health insurance on the dubious grounds that he should have known better..."

You are quite right that virtue (defined as a trait of moral excellence; goodness) is not watching a sick man die....but this is a straw man.

'Individualist' ethics don't EXCLUDE me from helping a sick man who is dying on the street. They merely exclude you from forcing me to provide help.

Martin also said:

"Why should they bother themselves with your claims? They have their own to defend."

The very selfishness you ridicule is being encouraged by the present system. Why should we help that dying man on the street given the presence of the abundant multi-layered safety net, which he can avail himself to.

Socialism is a knaves way out. It is Viscous both in its application through force and its moral zombification of the populace. Those who push for socialistic measures engage in moral hand washing. They feel they have passed the burden (and any sense of personal responsibility) to their institutions. There are still others who become moral zombies, numbed by an extensive social safety net, which removes any sense of personal ‘call to aid’ that they might still hold on to. They can rationalize (quite justifiably) that ‘they already gave at the office'. Your above characterization of selfishness in an ‘individualists world’ is more insidious in the world we live in today. I predict it will grow worse as government continues to expand.

'Individualist' ethics don't EXCLUDE me from helping a sick man who is dying on the street. They merely exclude you from forcin/g me to provide help.

When I meet the first man who actually embraces this "individualism", I'll let you know. You certainly don't. You'll call upon your collectivist brethren the first time I enter some parcel of land you've pissed around, and you and your armed brethren will chant "individualism" as you join forces to defend your collectivist claims.

The trouble with your "individualism" is that it drips with hypocrisy. You don't hesitate to force others to respect your claims today. You only object to enforcement of obligations you hope to escape until you finally leave someone else responsible for them.

The very selfishness you ridicule is being encouraged by the present system.

I don't ridicule your selfishness. I'm the selfish one. I want you to be responsible for yourself rather than leaving me with the cost of your irresponsibility, and I don't mind insisting that you carry your weight now, because I know I won't let you die in the street later. I ridicule your hypocrisy.

Socialism is a knaves way out.

You don't even know what the word means. I haven't advocated any centralized authority over productive means. I haven't opposed any market in health care or anything else.

Simple nonsense. Property itself is a collectivist obligation of others to respect your lawful claims. The obligation to carry reasonable health insurance is itself a property (proper obligation) of the individual.

You're twisted tightly, Martin. Insurance as an obligation? You cannot be serious, can you? Perhaps you need to go back to the definition of the word 'insurance'. Can you define reasonable health insurance? What if I am self-insured or I am somewhat irrational [by most people's standards] and place less of a priority on my health than I do with other prefered ways to use my money? What then, Martin? Do you profess to know more about what's good for me than I do myself?

You see theft only in the force you advocate to defend your immediate claims. You choose to see no theft in your refusal to bear the cost of your own risk of injury or ill health.

If you would, please show me where I've written that I refuse to insure myself for healthcare related services yet still expect other to pay these services.

And you do, I suppose. How noble your values are.

My feelings on the matter are conditional but my preference is to not see anyone die. I'd even be willing to help out where I could if my limited knowledge of treating illnesses only extends to basic first aid. But thank you for separating the sentence from its context through the use of the ellipsis, jackass.

Well, that's what you do when you demand a "right" to take this free ride yourself. If you demand no such right, I don't understand your objection.

You are a fool! Martin, you are the one demading a 'right' here -- a 'right' to nationalized healthcare insurance where the premiums to be insured are not contingent on health factors, risks, and forecasted consumption: no, what you are demanding is nationalized health insurance where one contributes only to the extent that they are 'able' to pay (be taxed), Marxist Brock!

No. I'd rather not pay for your free ride.

Then don't! Because I am not asking for the free ride, Marxist.

I'd rather compel you to be responsible for yourself here and now.

Schedule a visit or just drop by unannounced. Go on, compel me already! But just leave the government out of it, crook. But if you'd like to save your dumb ass a trip, I am already covered through a private means. No government had to compel me nor do I ask anyone else to foot the bill. See how that works?

In reality, you'll march with your collective to defend the will of armed men all the while you parade this facile and laughably inconsistent "individualism".

I volunteered and got a whole lot out of the arrangement while it lasted. Last I checked a common defense was constitutional and is necessary to be a deteret to any foreign entity who would wish these United States harm.

What I wish to know, though, is just how facile and inconsistant you believed men like the Founders to be. I mean, hell, individual liberty and freedom is facile and inconsistant? But socialism and communism have great complexities and are inherently consistant and solid? I guess there are complexities to murdering the dissenter and doing it consistantly, eh Marxist?

Bob in Seatac

Methinks,


Lowcountryjoe


jpm


I am a lead pencil


Mace

Love you guys.

Martinduckie,

From the first time I ever saw a post from you I knew I was reading the words of a fool. You write reams and streams but never really say anyting, a fact for which I have taken you to task in the past. It is all about engaging people in long running crap, round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chases the weasel. Sometimes you like to play the monkey and sometimes you like to play the weasel, but it is always about circling the mulberry bush.

That you have some sort of education is obvious, but what that education is I don't know if there is anyone on this blog that could guess. I know this, it is wasted on you.

Martinduck said:

"Individualism is not only the right to choose one's own course in life. It's also the obligation to carry one's own weight, and I favor this obligation, but I see no virtue in watching a sick man die because he has no health insurance on the dubious grounds that he should have known better, nor do I expect a humane culture to operate so, nor do I live in such a culture as a practical matter.

If you want to be a rugged individualist, that's fine with me. I'll have nothing to do with any enforcement of your claims, and I'll help myself to any parcel of land you choose to piss around and anything I might freely gather there, just as almighty God intended. Stop me if you can...."

What a load of shit, martinduckie. No one talked of virtue, least of all vidyohs. Vidyohs isn't stupid enough to get wrapped up in that crap when it comes to the natural world.

Individualism is carrying your own weight, shouldering your own load, accepting responsibility for self, and not trying to interfere withothers exercising the same rights; and, if you can't do that or won't do that then you're a thumbsucking socialist who is a drag on humanity, a corruption of the gene pool, and a candidate for retroactive birth control (IMHO).

Do you understand what retroactive birth control is, martinduckie? Stalin understood it and used it very effectively.




There is no virtue in saving someone who will not save himself. Nature's gene pool has always been self cleaning and it is only because of idiots like you that we interfere with nature. We might help a neighbor once, but if he repeats the same mistake and leaves himself in jeopardy, then its his ass, not mine. Like I said, pity, but no remorse.

As for taking what is mine. It is to laugh. Fool, property rights evolved long before they were codified into law. Furthermore only a fool equates property to land. Property is anything a man owns.

Unlike lowcountryjoe I don't do well on the range, but I have never missed a kill, and I am sure that was what he was implying as well.

Come take what is mine, you, government, I no longer give a shit. I am now 67, how much do you figure I have to lose? How much would you like to invest, fool?

Your problem martinduck, is that generally you are viewed much like muirduck, only he had the good sense to finally understand, leave, and not bother intelligent people.

martin take next step. You are conflating individualism with inwardness. Individualism can just as easily lead to concern for others. However the concern is carried out in a purly voluntary manner.

You certainly don't. You'll call upon your collectivist brethren the first time I enter some parcel of land you've pissed around, and you and your armed brethren will chant "individualism" as you join forces to defend your collectivist claims.

Your insanity is growing, Martin. If the "collective" is born of the free choice of the individuals to form a union, then it doesn't violate individualism and is in no way hypocritical. Also, what is your obsession with peeing on things?

I want you to be responsible for yourself rather than leaving me with the cost of your irresponsibility, and I don't mind insisting that you carry your weight now, because I know I won't let you die in the street later.

So, because you're a slave to your own values, you're going to force me to buy into your values because you don't want to bear the consequences of your values? Well, my values prevent me from letting you die of skin cancer or obesity related disease, so I'm going to have the cops round to your house to monitor your food, drink, sun exposure and sunscreen use. While, I'm at it, I won't let your kids suffer the consequences of low paying jobs, so I'm going to have the cops round to your house to beat the bastards if they don't get straight "A's". How does that grab your version of libertarian values?

Done here.

You write reams and streams but never really say anyting,

Now, that's not true, Vidyohs. He's pretty consistent in saying that he wants to bend you to his will.

Damm! We dun run 'im off!

Sometimes, I think this forum ought to have a good second grade teacher as a moderator in order to induce a degree of civility in this bnnch of unruly posters. :-)

Well said John Pertz.

Along the same lines I am always surprised at the numbers of folks who can't understand that for all of us to have true natural freedom we must all exercise self restraint through self discipline, self responsibility, and self rule. In other words, "we can't all do what we want regardless of the circumstances".

Unrestrained action in any arena is license not freedom.

David,

:-) if you love it you set it free.

Restrain it and you kill it.

Not to be preachy because I think you know this, but we don't "give" respect. A person earns respect and then we "show" it.

Martinduck gets the respects he earns.

David, why pine for a second grade teacher when people like yourself are scouting around the forum?

Martin is clearly advocating that collective theft is a good thing as long as it meets his moral standards of decency. And then he makes the pretzel-logic leap that private property rights are only recognized by the collective of society; therefore causing everthing to rely on the collective. He then goes on to point out this supposed hypocrisy on the individualists' part -- denying the collective is one instance and accepting it in another.

I suspect that Martin decided to DUCK out right about the time he read John Pertz's short post at around 10:05...the time that Martin's "we're all hypocritical collectivists at heart" argument was put into a checkmate. Supporting chess board moves are abundant in this thread and tackle the historical perspective on property rights as a natural right and the moral hazzards associated with government taking over the role of parent in our consumption choices. Having society (the collective) codify a natural right through legislation does promote civility; and on that score, Martin had a small but misguided point that needed to be addressed/rebuffed. But Martin really needed to be written to in a stern manner by those who do not wish to go along with his vision of what government should be doing. Why stop at healthcare, then? Food and housing are just as (or even more) important? Why stop anywhere if everyone is entitled to the same levels of consumption without having to shoulder the true costs of their consumption?

Martin was smart to hit the road. Just how much civility are we supposed to extend to unabashed theives, David?

Quote from Martin Brock: "If they don't, I have no serious problem with forcing them to carry it."

Ah, the confession of a fascist.

I'm guessing that Don enjoys very good health care insurance through his employer, a government sponsored enterprise.

Don can correct me if I am wrong.

When sick old ladies were dying in their attics in New Orleans a few years ago the dittoheads and some libertarians were hollering about how people should stand up and help themselves.

Told me a lot.

Collectivism might not be a bad thing if it actually existed. But it doesn't. What we have is a political class enforcing its will at gunpoint. True collectivism would have to be voluntary. In other words, true collectivism would be a form of individualism.

Quote from save the rust belt: "When sick old ladies were dying in their attics in New Orleans a few years ago the dittoheads and some libertarians were hollering about how people should stand up and help themselves."

And what did you do to help them (besides complaining about what others may or may not have been doing)?

save_the_rustbelt said:

"When sick old ladies were dying in their attics in New Orleans a few years ago the dittoheads and some libertarians were hollering about how people should stand up and help themselves. Told me a lot."

Many regular folks tried to help those sick old ladies....they didn't ask about the political affiliations of those who joined them. It didn't matter....they were turned away. The state cares little for Mother Teresa's....it cares most about procedural 'process'. I'll take the helping hands of countless individuals any day.

http://www.benfrank.net/blog/katrina_lack_of_response_archive/#flotilla

Our memories are short.

I too am curious to know what Shave the Rusty Belt did for those in NOLA.

Although I would consider myself closer to the "rugged individualist" side of this argument, I went to New Orleans twice.

I took diapers, baby formula, clothes, bottled water and other things directly to the Lower Ninth Ward. Gave them to the volunteer clothes bank and computer center set up by neighborhood volunteers.

I also demolished the interior of a house so that it could be examined and reuilt. A year later I built two foundations and put tyvek on a third house.

I did it for myself, and for others. The two are not mutually exclusive. This is truly a great country, as evidenced by the luxury that allows an army of volunteers to descend on NOLA and do that work for free.

Martin's continual, disdainful use of "property that you've pissed around" tells me that he thinks the concept of property rights is ludicrous. He disregards the fact that property rights are the basis for all freedoms. "Collectivist?" I think he's a full-blown communist sympathizer.

OT: "Culturally appropriate health care" is an oxymoron. There is healthy and there is unhealthy. WTF does culture have to do with the issue?

Martin Brock is a poopy-head (descending to his level of argumentation.)

2 observations about Martinduck:

1. He doesn't know the difference between classic rugged individualism(think 19th century pioneers) and modern individualism in an advanced state.

2. He doesn't get the difference between voluntary collective and forced collective. Given that I'm sure he'd excuse the Soviet collectivization program that killed millions of people.

save_the_rustbelt:

So nobody has to pay the consequences of their life decisions? I should be forced to pay for everyone? Last I checked, where is MY social safety net? I'd rather like that man in "Atlas Shrugged" who dissociated himself from YOUR forced collectivist society then participate in it as a SLAVE.

"When sick old ladies were dying in their attics in New Orleans a few years ago the dittoheads and some libertarians were hollering about how people should stand up and help themselves.

Told me a lot.

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Aug 7, 2008 8:57:33 AM"

Oooooooh gush gush STRB, sob sob.

Drag out documented proof that one single old lady died in her attic in New Orleans a few years ago. BTW while you're at it, show us where in USC Title 26 there is a clear and definitive requirement in law for the ordinary person who works and earns here in the USA to pay an income tax. You're still sucking hind tit on that one. But, don't bother with a blustery reply, I know you can't and no amount of diversionary BS from you will cover your ass on your failure.

Back to Culturally Appropriate Health Care. You seem to understand freedom even less than you understand Title 26 of the USC.

But then when did a socialist evangelical ever give as shit about freedom.

The people of New Orleans, or, Chicago, NYC, L.A., Oakland, Houston, Cleveland, Atlanta, etc. etc. who do not have the ability to mobilize themselves away from danger, have only themselfs to blame.

It isn't capitalism, dittoheads, libertarians, free markets, or angry old white guys. It is their own perpetual ignorance and stupidity that is the cause.

In all my life every time I hear some "person of color" (to quote JJ) say, "I couldn't go to school, I was prevented from getting an education." I immediately think of the numbers of times I have driven all neighborhoods in the cities I have lived in and never once, STRB, not once have I ever seen angry old white guys standing in the streets beating black kids away from the schools. The surprising but undeniable fact is, if a person in this country since 1955, does not get a good education it is their own damn fault, and it can't be laid to the feet of anyone else.

Here is the most odd fact, every school that is carried on the rolls as a failure in its mission to the general student body still has people graduate with a good education. They may be a small minority and they may have gained it by exclusive individual study and hard work, but they do it. While the majority tears the scool up and sit on their asses whimpering and whining about inequality, some get what they go for.

What's the difference, STRB? Sure the hell isn't government action or motivation.

Now a person with an education becomes employable, and employable people can purchase and pay for transportation, which means, STRB, that in an emergency they can walk out to the curb, get in their car and drive away to avoid the danger.

Now, if a person passes up all that free education and opportunity it opens for them, and sits in an attic in New Orleans waiting for that angry old white man that they hate to come around and provide transportation for them.......sorry sister, it is "we will see you in the next life" for you. No remorse.

But, you can provide the actual documented proof that old ladies died in their attics in New Orleans, right STRB?

2. He doesn't get the difference between voluntary collective and forced collective. Given that I'm sure he'd excuse the Soviet collectivization program that killed millions of people.

No need to speculate, Crusader, he excused Cuba's collectivist program on the Elian Gonzalez thread. On this, as Martin would say, the record is clear. He claims to be a libertarian but finds all forms of government equivalent. Was it Jimmy Carter who said that communism was "just another way to live"?

Whaaaaa??????

As most can see Martin´s collective manner certainly makes other writers feel ´forced´ into situations dealing with health care. There’s no liberty if force.

On this, as Martin would say, the record is clear.

Just another of Martin's canned-answer

facile replies.

Well, well.

I did not participate in the immediate NOLA effort but have many years of search-and-rescue (including floods) and disaster relief. I'm a little past my prime for the physical stuff. I have been nuts deep in freezing flood water more than once.

Now that my word processor is my most effective tool, and with my health care experience and reputation, I am going to spend the next two years looking at:

1) how to maintain health care services at the disaster site, during and immediately after

2) how to rebuild health care services

No money involved, just something I want to do for my "community."

There is a difference between collectivism and community, and I want to live in a community (in the local and larger sense), and have no concern we are going to become a bunch of crazed socialists.

PS: Vid, don't pay your income taxes, I'll say something nice about you at your sentencing hearing.

Quote from save_the_rustbelt: I did not participate in the immediate NOLA effort but have many years of search-and-rescue (including floods) and disaster relief. I'm a little past my prime for the physical stuff. I have been nuts deep in freezing flood water more than once. ..."

I applaud your efforts, past and present.

Please understand that I don't believe your efforts create any obligation on me or anybody else to do the same thing, coerced or otherwise. When I give to charity, money or time, I do so because I want to, not because some preacher told me I'll go to heaven, or some bureaucrat will let me deduct it from his plunder.

If you give, hurray for you, just leave me alone and keep your hands out of my pockets.

Keith beat me to it.

EXACTLY. You yourself show that individuals do these behaviors for themselves, for others, because they want to live in a society where people help each other- for all kinds of reasons.

Government force, or threat of force should never be one of those reasons.

It was government brilliance that led to people living below sea level, in an area with no job prospects, in the first place. Do some research on the Wagner Act housing in New Orleans, the levees, and the hurricane losses in dollars and lives before FEMA and Federal Flood Insurance existed.