The Entitlement Mentality

[Rob's House]

just don't agree. for every 1 scumbag trying to rip off social security for disabilty I see 3 people living in trailers working minimum wage jobs trying to pay their bills. btw, trailers are scary as shite with the recent tornadoes. they actually tell people on the radio to get into a ditch before staying in their trailers. don't yall think we can do better for people willing to work?

I have a problem with the whole concept of the collective "we". In practice it never works, and in principle I find it immoral. Viewed in a vaccuum it seems compassionate, but to make every American responsible for the plight of every other American is to saddle them with great burden which robs them of livelihood.

 

Plus, I've been inside a few of those trailers and 1. they're not that bad, and 2. when they are that bad, you wouldn't feel that much sympathy if you knew the person living there, and you certainly wouldn't want to be forced to finance an upgrade in his lifestyle.

 

* No one's advocating throwing the truly unemployable and disabled out in the streets.

[Doc]

just don't agree. for every 1 scumbag trying to rip off social security for disabilty I see 3 people living in trailers working minimum wage jobs trying to pay their bills. btw, trailers are scary as shite with the recent tornadoes. they actually tell people on the radio to get into a ditch before staying in their trailers. don't yall think we can do better for people willing to work?

We did. They were called "subprime mortgages." How'd that work out for everyone?

[dayman]

Wait, are you're saying this woman isn't displaying a sense of entitlement? This is acceptable behavior to you? If so, you don't get the concept of a social contract, dayman. It's not take, take, take. At some point you need to give.

 

Like it or not as a nation we have adopted healthcare reform. With such a change we have adopted standards. Some things are in, some things are out. Women's reproductive healthcare is in, as it should be IMO. If you don't agree, chalk it up to one of many things we all pay for (in this case through premiums) that you don't want to pay for. There are a lot of those things I pay for I don't want to pay for. I don't call the people that money goes to entitled.

 

As for the religious argument. I don't see pacifists across the nation getting refunds for the billions upon billions that pay for our wars.

Edited March 8, 2012 by dayman

[Doc]

Like it or not as a nation we have adopted healthcare reform. With such a change we have adopted standards. Some things are in, some things are out. Women's reproductive healthcare is in, as it should be IMO. If you don't agree, chalk it up to one of many things we all pay for (in this case through premiums) that you don't want to pay for. There are a lot of those things I pay for I don't want to pay for. I don't call the people that money goes to entitled.

Uh, no "we" didn't. It was railroaded through a Democratically-controlled congress with side deals made to get a few congress people onboard to invoke cloture. The majority of people didn't want it, and even less want it now than before. And when SCOTUS rules that the personal mandate is unconstitutional, it will eviscerate the heart of the bill.

 

As for what we should pay for, I don't agree with paying for oral contraceptives for birth control. For other documented medical conditions, fine. But condoms are cheap and safer since it helps prevent STDs and doesn't cause systemic effect. Use those or practice abstinence. I also don't think we should be paying for fertility treatments, which I'm sure will be up next.

[Adam]

I have a problem with the whole concept of the collective "we". In practice it never works, and in principle I find it immoral. Viewed in a vaccuum it seems compassionate, but to make every American responsible for the plight of every other American is to saddle them with great burden which robs them of livelihood.

 

Plus, I've been inside a few of those trailers and 1. they're not that bad, and 2. when they are that bad, you wouldn't feel that much sympathy if you knew the person living there, and you certainly wouldn't want to be forced to finance an upgrade in his lifestyle.

 

* No one's advocating throwing the truly unemployable and disabled out in the streets.

That last line needs to be left out. It really spoils the demogougery, which is what it's really all about. Let the left have a little fun.

 

On a serious note, what is your opinion of the draft?

 

Uh, no "we" didn't. It was railroaded through a Democratically-controlled congress with side deals made to get a few congress people onboard to invoke cloture. The majority of people didn't want it, and even less want it now than before. And when SCOTUS rules that the personal mandate is unconstitutional, it will eviscerate the heart of the bill.

 

As for what we should pay for, I don't agree with paying for oral contraceptives for birth control. For other documented medical conditions, fine. But condoms are cheap and safer since it helps prevent STDs and doesn't cause systemic effect. Use those or practice abstinence. I also don't think we should be paying for fertility treatments, which I'm sure will be up next.

"We" elected the people who were in Congress through a majority vote. President Obama was elected through a majority in the electoral college. It is usually guaranteed that everybody won't be pleased by a President (and that goes all the way back to the first one), but everyone is part of the electorate that put them in office.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Adam

[dayman]

Uh, no "we" didn't. It was railroaded through a Democratically-controlled congress with side deals made to get a few congress people onboard to invoke cloture. The majority of people didn't want it, and even less want it now than before. And when SCOTUS rules that the personal mandate is unconstitutional, it will eviscerate the heart of the bill.

 

As for what we should pay for, I don't agree with paying for oral contraceptives for birth control. For other documented medical conditions, fine. But condoms are cheap and safer since it helps prevent STDs and doesn't cause systemic effect. Use those or practice abstinence. I also don't think we should be paying for fertility treatments, which I'm sure will be up next.

 

Well as for your first paragraph you are ultimately not satisfied with the way Washington works. Neither am I. Either way, "we" adopted it.

 

As for the second paragraph, you are entitled to your opinion I would never call it wrong. I would cover birth control (for what most people I talk to in real life consider obvious reasons).

[Adam]

Well as for your first paragraph you are ultimately not satisfied with the way Washington works. Neither am I. Either way, "we" adopted it.

 

As for the second paragraph, you are entitled to your opinion I would never call it wrong. I would cover birth control (for what most people I talk to in real life consider obvious reasons).

In what ways would you change it?

[dayman]

In what ways would you change it?

 

That's a very complicated question. I don't have the answer. But the game of "this for that" and blocking everything you can and just competing for every little tread of momentum party wise is what I refer to. And Nancy Pelosi and many democrats are equally as guilty as the Tea Party champions so don't think I'm just throwing the far right under the bus.

[Doc]

Well as for your first paragraph you are ultimately not satisfied with the way Washington works. Neither am I. Either way, "we" adopted it.

 

As for the second paragraph, you are entitled to your opinion I would never call it wrong. I would cover birth control (for what most people I talk to in real life consider obvious reasons).

No "we" didn't adopt it. "We" are no longer being properly represented by our elected leaders, be it Dem or Repub. The bill is such an albatross, that NO ONE is talking about it from the Dem side.

 

And what are these "obvious reasons?"

[dayman]

Ultimately I think people need to elect more moderate/reasonable politicians to the house/senate. That would require educated people who care about local politics outside of the presidential noise which I can't see happening anytime soon. Like I've said before...no American politician could possibly have a great term in the presidency right no IMO

[Rob's House]

That last line needs to be left out. It really spoils the demogougery, which is what it's really all about. Let the left have a little fun.

 

On a serious note, what is your opinion of the draft?

I want Ingrahm, Martin, or Reiff in the first and I'm hoping Zach Brown falls to us in the second.

[Adam]

That's a very complicated question. I don't have the answer. But the game of "this for that" and blocking everything you can and just competing for every little tread of momentum party wise is what I refer to. And Nancy Pelosi and many democrats are equally as guilty as the Tea Party champions so don't think I'm just throwing the far right under the bus.

I can agree with you- I also would like something done with the lobbyists. They have way too much power on both sides of the aisle

 

I want Ingrahm, Martin, or Reiff in the first and I'm hoping Zach Brown falls to us in the second.

Ha! but not that type of draft

Edited March 8, 2012 by Adam

[dayman]

No "we" didn't adopt it. "We" are no longer being properly represented by our elected leaders, be it Dem or Repub. The bill is such an albatross, that NO ONE is talking about it from the Dem side.

 

And what are these "obvious reasons?"

 

I mean, like I said it's fair enough you don't feel it should be included. To me, the idea coverage that leaves out birth control and other reproductive care is complete is BS. Did you know for instance medicare covers pedicures? Podiatrists are banking. Sort of anecdotal for me to say that but the point is IMO even assuming that we should begin to adopt a more minimalist approach to what is and isn't covered...I wouldn't start with birth control. I also believe it saves money ultimately. The people that need cheap birth control the most are the exact people who have kids that cost society far more than the pill. As for designer pills and any slippery slope argument about fertility...well...we can have that discussion but I'm not really against reasonable limits on how we approach managing reproductive care in terms of cost.

[birdog1960]

We did. They were called "subprime mortgages." How'd that work out for everyone?

predatory lending is definitely not the answer. a true living wage certainly is.

[3rdnlng]

I want Ingrahm, Martin, or Reiff in the first and I'm hoping Zach Brown falls to us in the second.

 

Then you would propose waiving Obama before his first contract is up?

[Rob's House]

predatory lending is definitely not the answer. a true living wage certainly is.

Your idealism is getting the better of you; just because you want it to work doesn't mean it will. The only thing raising minimum wage does is block access to the workforce by those at the bottom of the ladder (see South Africa) and spur inflation. The idea that raising the minimum wage will increase prosperity runs counter to the fundamental concepts of supply and demand.

 

Then you would propose waiving Obama before his first contract is up?

Even if his money's already guaranteed.

[DC Tom]

predatory lending is definitely not the answer. a true living wage certainly is.

 

Now "subprime mortgages" are predatory lending?

[Adam]

Your idealism is getting the better of you; just because you want it to work doesn't mean it will. The only thing raising minimum wage does is block access to the workforce by those at the bottom of the ladder (see South Africa) and spur inflation. The idea that raising the minimum wage will increase prosperity runs counter to the fundamental concepts of supply and demand.

 

 

Even if his money's already guaranteed.

Do you think we would be better off without a minimum wage?

[Rob's House]

Do you think we would be better off without a minimum wage?

Eventually the market will adjust to the floor as it is set and the impact is minimal. The problem when you raise it. In the short term while the market adjusts some will benefit and others will lose. To society as a whole (and the poor) it is a net loss.

[Doc]

I mean, like I said it's fair enough you don't feel it should be included. To me, the idea coverage that leaves out birth control and other reproductive care is complete is BS. Did you know for instance medicare covers pedicures? Podiatrists are banking. Sort of anecdotal for me to say that but the point is IMO even assuming that we should begin to adopt a more minimalist approach to what is and isn't covered...I wouldn't start with birth control. I also believe it saves money ultimately. The people that need cheap birth control the most are the exact people who have kids that cost society far more than the pill. As for designer pills and any slippery slope argument about fertility...well...we can have that discussion but I'm not really against reasonable limits on how we approach managing reproductive care in terms of cost.

Again dayman, condoms are cheap, provide far greater protection against STD's, and don't cause systemic effects. The pill is not the be-all, end-all. There's also the morning after pill. Again more personal responsibility should be in order.