Topic: Michael Moore's SICKO is a must see.

[upperlake04]

Trust me, we are eyeballing your oil shale/sands big time.

        You need swagger lessons, Bob   

[SEBNN]

Man, try to leave, and get sucked back in .  Just wondering what was so great about the 60's?  In politics we had LBJ instituting a "war on poverty" obviously a glowing success that shows if we give poor people money they won't be poor.  At that time he also increased the number of troops in Vietnam from under 20K to over 500K.  With his Sec Def they instituted the first time a war was and could be run by the commander in chief (good results there too).  (By this point I hope that you are catching the sarcasm) 

I believe though, the 60's spirit that you are talking about would be the peace, love, and harmony movement that involved militant peace activists taking what they felt were justifiable actions against the establishment.  A time where if you ignored what was going on in the world on a large scale, and smoked pot and talked of transcendental experiences you were somehow enlightened.  (Note that I wasn't even alive during the 60's, just what I have read and seen).  Dr. King was assassinated during this time because someone felt it was justifiable, national guard troops fired on protestors because someone felt it was justifiable.

Now, the spirit of the 60's lives on because people who were there continue to make policy and decisions in industry and government.  I don't see that they learned anything from their experiences in the 60's.  Congress who promised to end war, poverty, etc has not done that and instead has the lowest approval rating of any congress that I have ever seen.  The establishment (now made up of people who fought the establishment) still ignores and acknowledges people based on political expediency.  (note that Cindy Sheehan has not gotten much press since the last congressional election, but she'll be back in time for 2008)  If it is political activism that you want and long for from the 60's, then get out there and start marching, but I don't see much good that came out of the 60's in the way of societal improvements.  But the bikes and cars of that era were something else.

Also, before immediately protesting the war in Iraq, read the books written by fighters and soldiers in Vietnam.  Of the ones I have read, the only regret that I have heard expressed is that we as a nation did not have what it takes to back the soldiers to the end.  They fought and died doing what they felt was their duty and the only thanks they ever got was from the guys that they fought alongside with.  That is also a portion of the 60's spirit that I hope we never see.  Once again I'll point out that I wasn't alive during the 60's, its from what I have read or seen, personal experience trumps 30 years removed observational experience, yada yada yada.  All that said, someone who was there in the 60's, please tell me what was so great about the 60's that you would be willing to go back and trade today for yesterday?

As for Iraq, clearly someone didn't think about what it would take and how long it would take.  I believe that those in our government with limited military experience pushed and rushed into what they hoped would be quick victory.  This applies to both side of the isle as the same mentality that was present during the first gulf war was and is present with the current gulf war.  During the first gulf war some cabinet members were pushing for war before we were ready.  Rather than protest the war, how about we protest the way that we treat our troops and what we send them to battle with.  How about we have a rally supporting the troops, doesn't have to support the war in Iraq, but actually support the troops.  Don't put up signs asking them to frag their leaders (yeah, I've seen them) just support the troops no matter how long they are at war.  Then, go and protest the leaders that you feel are doing a bad job.  Call their office, email them, fax them, and if you get a chance to go to DC, try and get an appointment to meet with them in person.  Rather than taking the Democracy approach of mass protests, take the Republic approach of talking directly to the person that you feel is doing a bad job.  If they represent you then your voice has some weight.  If enough people do this directly rather than trying to sway mass public opinion (democracy) then I think that we can really see change.  Because honestly I think that politicians are used to the ebb and flow of public opinion.  What is making big headlines now and getting people up in arms will be replaced next week by something else.  Just like this forum.  I'm betting that in another week this thread is stagnant ( I certainly hope so as I have things I need to get done).  Note that it is already so far off topic that it could be 4 separate threads.  If you've made it this far, congratulations, you have the patience of Job.

[eldar]

I didnt have the patience.  

All you speak of is just your opinion. There are no real facts at least not with the part I managed to make it through.  Here is a fact. The US is going to hell, circling the drain. To many people think only of themselves. You try to help someone out and if they still get hurt, they can sue you. So why bother helping. There is the problem and it has existed in one form or another through all human time. There are bright spots to be sure but those only come when the $h1t hits the fan. As that has not happened fully yet, no one will do anything. The other problem is that people wait longer and longer before deciding it has hit the fan.

sebnn, when the time finally comes, will you be willing to lay down your life, even in vain, to help obtain a positive change? That is the question everyone must ask themselves for if you do nothing, then you end up helping the other side in essence.

[SEBNN]

I didnt have the patience.  

All you speak of is just your opinion. There are no real facts at least not with the part I managed to make it through.  Here is a fact. The US is going to hell, circling the drain. To many people think only of themselves. You try to help someone out and if they still get hurt, they can sue you. So why bother helping. There is the problem and it has existed in one form or another through all human time. There are bright spots to be sure but those only come when the $h1t hits the fan. As that has not happened fully yet, no one will do anything. The other problem is that people wait longer and longer before deciding it has hit the fan.

sebnn, when the time finally comes, will you be willing to lay down your life, even in vain, to help obtain a positive change? That is the question everyone must ask themselves for if you do nothing, then you end up helping the other side in essence.

So then, would you support eliminating gay rights if it was for the good of society?  Gays are being selfish demanding change for their choice (yeah I know, a whole nuther debate) in sexual partners.  Demanding society change because of who they have sex with.  If the question here is selfishness or societal good; do you think that every person who opposes socialized health care does so because of greed?  Do parents limit their children's candy intake because of greed, they just want the candy to themselves? 

To me dying for a cause is good, if it is the right cause.  Suicide bombers die to try and evoke a change that they believe in, do you feel that they are doing something good, or simply wasting life unnecessarily?

And while my previous posts are simply opinion, everyone is stating opinion.  Even first hand accounts are only superior to opinion because of the emotional aspect.  A witness still only has one perspective and is unable to determine all of the influences in their own brain and others.  Until someone is all knowing and omniscient the are still only stating opinion.  Some are imformed and thought out, others are simply regurgitating the opinions of others that sounded reasonable enough at the time.

I'll stop now before I get too long winded.  Off to the garage. 

[S-Dog]

OK OK.. I had to.

I AM selfish.

I am selfish because I want to be able to keep as much of my HARD earned money as I can.

I am selfish because I want to provide for my wife and son and give them all the things THEY need, maybe even some of the stuff they WANT.

I am selfish because I care about me and MY family's well being LOOOOONG before anyone else's, and would do whatever it takes to make sure they are safe and comfortable.

I am selfish because I do not think it is right that I live paycheck to paycheck(me and my wife work)yet the more money I make the larger the percentage I have to give to a bloated government. Any yet there are many, many people who choose to be baby machine or never get up off their asses to make an honest living(I am well aware that there are exceptions)while I struggle to not fall deeper and deeper into debt.

Now, I donate my time, help out where I can.  But I do NOT think that it should be forced.

I believe in our constitution.  I believe LESS government is better.  What did people used to do when they had financial trouble?  I surely wasn't the governments job to bail them out. It was the church, families, and friends.

People posting here keep on talking about how people need to stop being selfish.  I don't want to stop.  I like money. WOW. There. I said it. I like money.  I work hard to make it and don't enjoy just giving it away.  Why would I work so hard if I enjoyed doing that?
If you want to give your money away, go nuts.  Leave mine alone please.

[/Flame On] 

[Spikeybike]

well said s-dog .
i'm with you, money rocks!!

[eldar]

I like money as much as anyone else. My line was that people need to be more active in their roles in society. It has to be at every level, even local. I question presidential voting but regional and local voting is still pretty straight. Work to make things better at home and in your state, then with that in place, the whole state can move in one direction. It is funny how I sound like a dreamer yet when serious thought is applied, it is valid.

[S-Dog]

I like money as much as anyone else. My line was that people need to be more active in their roles in society. It has to be at every level, even local. I question presidential voting but regional and local voting is still pretty straight. Work to make things better at home and in your state, then with that in place, the whole state can move in one direction. It is funny how I sound like a dreamer yet when serious thought is applied, it is valid.

I fully agree with you Eldar.  When a lot of people do something they might consider to be small it can become much larger very quickly.

[Terry in Australia]

Yep, I agree entirely, money might be the root of all evil, but without it, life's pretty evil anyway.

As far as giving away your money goes though, you're already funding free medical for poor people via your taxes apparently, so why can't your government do the same as the governments in Europe, the UK, Canada and Oz (that I know of) and extend those benefits to ALL Americans?

Can you imagine how much extra money "working stiffs" in the US would have in their pockets if their employers gave their workers the money that they give private medical insurance companies? Here in Oz we have to pay 1% of our salaries into Medicare for free basic health cover, i.e., if you get sick, they'll fix you.

A friend of mine lost the top off his finger adjusting a motorcycle chain (long story) and it would have cost him thousands of dollars to repair (microsurgery, hospital stay, drugs etc) if he had to pay for it out of his pocket, but because everyone here has tax payer funded basic medical treatment, it didn't cost him anything. And that's how it should be, that 1% is money well spent, don't you think? Cheers, Terry.

[S-Dog]

If it could be 1% I would absolutely go for it.... I spend about $140 a WEEK!!! in health care right now.

[Uncle Ernie]

Remember what I said about a lack of cultural and social education?  Your comment about gays is screaming.  I heard my caomputer yelling while I was in the garage- and it's detached 30 yards away!
If you bother to do any research- or- God forbid, talk to someone who is gay- you'll find that who they are attracted to is NOT a choice.  Brain didn't develope normally, gene mutation- whatever.  Gay folks have been around since mankind began.
They are NOT asking to change society.  The "normal" Christian family ideal will NOT disappear.  All they want to do is be able to have the same rights for the partner they choose that a legally married couple and family have.   As far as the politics of birth control / right to lifers goes (those people who refuse to realize that 13 year olds are having sex), they are some of the few who are willing to adopt the kids that are different in some way and would otherwise get shunted into possibly the WORST social program in the 'States; Foster Care.  Talk about abusing the system!  
"Behold the work of God. How can man make straight that which He has made crooked"  Isn't that one of the best double entendres ever?  In other words- God made them.  There are millions of places in the New Testament telling you to moind your own business.  You want less government?  There's a place to start.  
Yeah- I'm for gay rights.  The wads who claim that legal unions of gay people will destroy the American family are hysterical fear mongers.  Thousands of teenage girls are having babies just fine, thank you.  Thousands of upper-middle class women in their 30's and 40's are having babies and shunting them off to daycare and buying them all kinds of junk in order to assuage their guilt for not spending time with their kids, thank you.  

If you wish to convey cogent opinions, running around yelling "the sky is falling and it's all liberal Democrats' fault" isn't going to get people to listen except others like you.

I also notice you do what my wife does;  When she has no defense or rejoinder about something, she goes on the attack and says, "Well, what about when YOU do / say / whatever".  Dear- we were just discussing you, not me.  

[Terry in Australia]

That's it Unkie Ernie, nothing wrong with gay men, that leaves more chicks for me! It's those damn Lesbians that I can't stand, those greedy biatches!

[BobbyR]

Man, try to leave, and get sucked back in .  Just wondering what was so great about the 60's?  In politics we had LBJ instituting a "war on poverty" obviously a glowing success that shows if we give poor people money they won't be poor.  At that time he also increased the number of troops in Vietnam from under 20K to over 500K.  With his Sec Def they instituted the first time a war was and could be run by the commander in chief (good results there too).  (By this point I hope that you are catching the sarcasm) 

I believe though, the 60's spirit that you are talking about would be the peace, love, and harmony movement that involved militant peace activists taking what they felt were justifiable actions against the establishment.  A time where if you ignored what was going on in the world on a large scale, and smoked pot and talked of transcendental experiences you were somehow enlightened.  (Note that I wasn't even alive during the 60's, just what I have read and seen).  Dr. King was assassinated during this time because someone felt it was justifiable, national guard troops fired on protestors because someone felt it was justifiable.

Now, the spirit of the 60's lives on because people who were there continue to make policy and decisions in industry and government.  I don't see that they learned anything from their experiences in the 60's.  Congress who promised to end war, poverty, etc has not done that and instead has the lowest approval rating of any congress that I have ever seen.  The establishment (now made up of people who fought the establishment) still ignores and acknowledges people based on political expediency.  (note that Cindy Sheehan has not gotten much press since the last congressional election, but she'll be back in time for 2008)  If it is political activism that you want and long for from the 60's, then get out there and start marching, but I don't see much good that came out of the 60's in the way of societal improvements.  But the bikes and cars of that era were something else.

Also, before immediately protesting the war in Iraq, read the books written by fighters and soldiers in Vietnam.  Of the ones I have read, the only regret that I have heard expressed is that we as a nation did not have what it takes to back the soldiers to the end.  They fought and died doing what they felt was their duty and the only thanks they ever got was from the guys that they fought alongside with.  That is also a portion of the 60's spirit that I hope we never see.  Once again I'll point out that I wasn't alive during the 60's, its from what I have read or seen, personal experience trumps 30 years removed observational experience, yada yada yada.  All that said, someone who was there in the 60's, please tell me what was so great about the 60's that you would be willing to go back and trade today for yesterday?

As for Iraq, clearly someone didn't think about what it would take and how long it would take.  I believe that those in our government with limited military experience pushed and rushed into what they hoped would be quick victory.  This applies to both side of the isle as the same mentality that was present during the first gulf war was and is present with the current gulf war.  During the first gulf war some cabinet members were pushing for war before we were ready.  Rather than protest the war, how about we protest the way that we treat our troops and what we send them to battle with.  How about we have a rally supporting the troops, doesn't have to support the war in Iraq, but actually support the troops.  Don't put up signs asking them to frag their leaders (yeah, I've seen them) just support the troops no matter how long they are at war.  Then, go and protest the leaders that you feel are doing a bad job.  Call their office, email them, fax them, and if you get a chance to go to DC, try and get an appointment to meet with them in person.  Rather than taking the Democracy approach of mass protests, take the Republic approach of talking directly to the person that you feel is doing a bad job.  If they represent you then your voice has some weight.  If enough people do this directly rather than trying to sway mass public opinion (democracy) then I think that we can really see change.  Because honestly I think that politicians are used to the ebb and flow of public opinion.  What is making big headlines now and getting people up in arms will be replaced next week by something else.  Just like this forum.  I'm betting that in another week this thread is stagnant ( I certainly hope so as I have things I need to get done).  Note that it is already so far off topic that it could be 4 separate threads.  If you've made it this far, congratulations, you have the patience of Job.

If there is good news it is that people have separated the War from the people who started the War. Even the most liberal people I know in this State feel that way. It was not so during Nam. I was called "baby killer on several occasions.
The quick and truest answer to your question is that my generation blew it. Most of the social reforms we have today stem from the 60's where there were riots, the shooting of students by troops, etc. We went up to a point and stopped.
The US really became wealthy in the late 1950s and in the 1960's. I remember my old man bought 1 share of IBM stock for around $300.00 1965 dollars. Today it is around $107.00. At the end of the Vietnam War my generation lost that focus the war and civil rights gave us and turned toward making money. Money is a distraction, and living good is a real distraction.
At this point the Iraq war is becoming a focus of attention. Couple that with an aging voting block that is concerned about their later years in which healthcare will be a major concern you may see a return.
The politicians have always looked to middle class America for it's support since that group votes and is comfortably numb. The my Country right or wrong group is always around to round out the numbers.
One of Nixon's major reasons for getting out of Nam as quick as he could was commentary by people like Walter Cronkite, who was the most trusted TV man in America, when he came out and said the War was wrong, Nixon saw the broadcast and told his aides "we have lost middle America", from then on even my working class friends who were war hawks said the war was wrong.
With all the money we are pissing away on this war, we could feed the hungry and start a National Health care system. Owing money to China is not a problem to me since it kinda shields us in a way, you never shoot your best customer and you won;t let anyone else do it
either. The US is still strong and the Canadians are developing new stuff for us to make money from.
We gotta get our priorities straight. Sick and suffering people need help.
       

[BobbyR]

Yep, I agree entirely, money might be the root of all evil, but without it, life's pretty evil anyway.

As far as giving away your money goes though, you're already funding free medical for poor people via your taxes apparently, so why can't your government do the same as the governments in Europe, the UK, Canada and Oz (that I know of) and extend those benefits to ALL Americans?

Can you imagine how much extra money "working stiffs" in the US would have in their pockets if their employers gave their workers the money that they give private medical insurance companies? Here in Oz we have to pay 1% of our salaries into Medicare for free basic health cover, i.e., if you get sick, they'll fix you.

A friend of mine lost the top off his finger adjusting a motorcycle chain (long story) and it would have cost him thousands of dollars to repair (microsurgery, hospital stay, drugs etc) if he had to pay for it out of his pocket, but because everyone here has tax payer funded basic medical treatment, it didn't cost him anything. And that's how it should be, that 1% is money well spent, don't you think? Cheers, Terry.

+2. Since I am shelling out 30% to the Gov't for nothing now. 1% for something would be a blessing. Actually if you add in all of he hidden taxes we pay for this and that, I am shelling out closer to 50%. Who am I to complain since it allows me to ride a 28 year old bike.

[andy750]

Interesting debate so far.....now Im curious...why is that America is the only industrialized country WITHOUT National Healthcare?

http://www.actupny.org/indexfolder/welcome.html

Is it because its one of the richest countries in the World and has the highest standard of living?

No....this year the us ranked 15th (in certain tables) whereas Australia was 3rd (must be all those sheep Terry  ). (more comprehensive lists are here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States)

This to me is the basic question this thread is asking. its NOT about how hard your life has been up until now or how many sacrifices you have made along the way or how many jobs you have but couldn't hold onto and its not about YOU. Its about the society you live in. Some have said the US has the highest standards of medical care in the world. I would say it has ONE of the highest standards in the world. The other industrialized countries, as judged by the Standard living indexes, show they ALSO have very good National Healthcare systems.

So the question Im asking is how does America gain by NOT having National Healthcare? Are its people really better off? Do they have more money to spend on Ipods and TVs or are they actually spending more money on privately funded healthcare?? How much debt does the average American have compared to other industrialized countries and how much of that is going to pay for basic healthcare?

cheers
Andy

 

[ofreen]

I don't know that the government needs to fund it everytime somebody goes to the doc with a runny nose, but some kind of catastrophic health care should be doable without breaking the bank.

It seems ironic to me that it is reported that untold billions of dollars have gone unaccounted for in the Iraq war with hardly a peep from the populace, yet the idea of taking care of people in need is controversial.  Of course in U.S. politics these days it is always one extreme and the other fighting it out, so not much gets done except the big boys get fatter.

[SEBNN]

Remember what I said about a lack of cultural and social education?  Your comment about gays is screaming.  I heard my caomputer yelling while I was in the garage- and it's detached 30 yards away!
If you bother to do any research- or- God forbid, talk to someone who is gay- you'll find that who they are attracted to is NOT a choice.  Brain didn't develope normally, gene mutation- whatever.  Gay folks have been around since mankind began.
They are NOT asking to change society.  The "normal" Christian family ideal will NOT disappear.  All they want to do is be able to have the same rights for the partner they choose that a legally married couple and family have.   As far as the politics of birth control / right to lifers goes (those people who refuse to realize that 13 year olds are having sex), they are some of the few who are willing to adopt the kids that are different in some way and would otherwise get shunted into possibly the WORST social program in the 'States; Foster Care.  Talk about abusing the system! 
"Behold the work of God. How can man make straight that which He has made crooked"  Isn't that one of the best double entendres ever?  In other words- God made them.  There are millions of places in the New Testament telling you to moind your own business.  You want less government?  There's a place to start. 
Yeah- I'm for gay rights.  The wads who claim that legal unions of gay people will destroy the American family are hysterical fear mongers.  Thousands of teenage girls are having babies just fine, thank you.  Thousands of upper-middle class women in their 30's and 40's are having babies and shunting them off to daycare and buying them all kinds of junk in order to assuage their guilt for not spending time with their kids, thank you. 

If you wish to convey cogent opinions, running around yelling "the sky is falling and it's all liberal Democrats' fault" isn't going to get people to listen except others like you.

I also notice you do what my wife does;  When she has no defense or rejoinder about something, she goes on the attack and says, "Well, what about when YOU do / say / whatever".  Dear- we were just discussing you, not me.   

So answer the damn question already and quit flaming about choices or brain chemistry.  The question was "if same sex attraction is bad for society, would the government be justified in outlawing it and persecuting those who practice homosexuality in defense of society"?  This is simply on the lines that you have that taking money from people to provide universal health care is good for society.  People are forced to pay taxes and persecuted if they don't.  I picked homosexuality precisely because it is a hot topic.  The discussion about nature/nurture/choice is for a whole different time.  If something will benefit society enough, are we justified in taking something from individuals to fill that something?

[BobbyR]

That's it Unkie Ernie, nothing wrong with gay men, that leaves more chicks for me! It's those damn Lesbians that I can't stand, those greedy biatches!

But I bet you love to watch em.

[Uncle Ernie]

Andy, I don't think Americans want to deal with facts.  If we wanted to, we would be capable of electing a leader, not the least of all evils that will squeak by.  As I understand it, despite all our terific machines and medical tech, the USA has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the civilised world. 

Mr SEBNN, I think if something genuinly is for the greater good, the citizens should give it up.
The problem is who decides that.  Immenent domain is a good example of the privateers in government taking advantage of people by saying the city / county needs the land.  The war in Iraq is another example.  Private companies are enjoying the war quite a lot.  I'm quite sure they don't favour campaign limits.
As far as same sex attraction goes, I'm sure many people would prefer not to pay it much attention.  A sort of generalized "don't ask, don't tell".  Aside from the macho "icky factor", if it was going to be made policy, I would like to know How or Why it affects society in a negative manner before just going along with what the government decrees.

To be more specific to your question- it depends on who is deciding what would be beneficial to the greater good and how it's measured.  If I thought paying more taxes would go toward generalized healthcare, I would approve higher taxes.  If I thought the money was going to buy more guns that seem to disappear, then I would not approve.
If I thought my money was going to a good cause, it might even help out by my not having to give quite as much to a couple of charities I donate to. 

Seems like I saw on 20/20 or 60 Minutes that the less money people make, the more they donate to charities.  I think it's that they've been there and understand.  (or is that just liberal media spreading more propaganda?)

ISN'T THERE A SPELL CHECK ANYMORE?

[Quail "Owner of the comfortable k8"]

This country is only 200 years old and for about 100 years the USA held the rest of the world in the palm of its hand.  We were not like Europe, USSR, or like any country ever known.  But this "From cradle to grave" goverment thinking slipped in as A New Deal, and we bit the hook.  We (the US) have borrowed more than we can ever repay.  Our money does not even belong to the US it belongs to The Federal Reserve and if you don't know it, that is not part of our federal goverment.  (The collateral the US put up is the land your state sits on, that is why China and the rest of the world buying up our notes has a lot of people worried)  Us Americans have borrowed more money than most can or plan to ever pay back. ( In 1959 a 65yr old male could not get a 30 year morgage???  I wonder why?)  My point we almost are like Europe, USSR, OZ, Canada, etc  now but what country out there is going to hold us up like we did them.  We are the fattened calf tied to the stake just waiting for the rest of the world to gobble us up like we have done to every goverment we collasped financially. I don't see any country out there planning on rebuilding us when the smoke clears.  We have been the fool on a ship of fools, we are giving the whole damn thing away.

We had some great ideas in the 60/70s but we never knew the true cost was this country.  When it all comes apart your circle will have your family, your church, and your friends in it. Your circle just has to be strong enough for you to survive.  Or you can just stand by the mail box and wait for that goverment check.

[SEBNN]

Mr SEBNN, I think if something genuenly is for the greater good, the citizens should give it up.
The problem is who decides that.  Imminent domain is a good example of the privateers in government taking advantage of people by saying the city / county needs the land.  The war in Iraq is another example.  Private companies are enjoying the war quite a lot.  I'm quite sure they don't favour campaign limits.
As far as same sex attraction goes, I'm sure many people would prefer not to pay it much attention.  A sort of generalized "don't ask, don't tell".  Aside from the macho "icky factor", if it was going to be made policy, I would like to know How or Why it affects society in a negative manner before just going along with what the government decrees.

To be more specific to your question- it depends on who is deciding what would be beneficial to the greater good and how it's measured.  If I thought paying more taxes would go toward generalized healthcare, I would approve higher taxes.  If I thought the money was going to buy more guns that seem to disappear, then I would not approve.
If I thought my money was going to a good cause, it might even help out by my not having to give quite as much to a couple of charities I donate to. 

Seems like I saw on 20/20 or 60 Minutes that the less money people make, the more they donate to charities.  I think it's that they've been there and understand.  (or is that just liberal media spreading more propaganda?)

ISN'T THERE A SPELL CHECK ANYMORE?

There, is a spell check, but when I get in a hurry (like the welding shop closes in 30 min and I need to get a bottle filled) I tend to skip the less important things.  Though I note when quoting your reply, a couple (not many) words trip the spell checker. 

Anyways, I agree with you that the problem is who picks what is bad for society.  In the past people decided it was alcohol, now it is smoking and obesity.  Yes these things are all bad, but to what extent do we as a country vote to eliminate the rights of the individual for the good of society. 

So if I understand it correctly, you are theoretically in favor of outlawing behaviors if they cause problems with society.  In which case I can only assume that you would support a maximum speed of 45mph as this would greatly decrease the number of traffic accidents and auto related deaths while extending the life of our roads.  This would have larger benefits to society than health care as the people who would have died can live and continue to pay taxes to support socialized health care. 

To me the government should stay as far out of our lives as possible.  Rather than more social programs, we can work to educate people, especially young people about the importance of a good income and health insurance and learning a valuable trade or getting an advanced degree.  And yes, there will still be those who it doesn't work out well for and with this education we will teach about the need to help others and then we can slowly change society in a positive (spirit of the 60's but with positive lasting results rather than the lasting rancor and bitterness that I see now in our politics) direction without the need for additional laws, restrictions, and government waste.  It will take more time, but I believe that people doing things because they know that they are right will do more for this country than taxing them more and making them pay because they are supposed to.

That I believe is the difference between us, (and the US and the world) is that I feel people are innately good and will help others.  I have a friend that was paying his neighbors medical bills to the tune of 600.00 a month not because the government or anyone else told him to, but because he and his wife truly care for others.  I fell that this charitable giving is the basis of a free society that we are not compelled to give by some higher authority with the threat of imprisonment; rather that we give because we understand that our generosity is an essential part of a healthy society.  The end goal is that the person helped will be able to recoup and continue as an important member of society, and if not then the society can help them to meet their needs while still helping them maintain their importance to society.  Socialized health care does not do that.  Socialized health care, and other social programs, foster a "help me" mentality that does not help a person in the long run to grow or improve, rather it makes them weaker and more dependent on their benefactors (government).  This is why politicians encourage this is because those dependent on government assistance tend to vote for the party they feel will increase their support payments (not republicans).  Military personnel generally vote republican because republicans typically increase military pay rates.  That just seems to be the way that things work.

I am all for helping out those in need, but the question is my mind is when do good intentions cause more harm than good.  Unintended consequences are something that most people that I have talked to do not consider when proposing plans such as this.  Once again though, the question is where do our good-intention-social programs enforced by the government actually start to hurt individuals and society.

On a side note, after the tsunami a few years ago, care to guess which country led the world in donations to help them out?  Whose ships were anchored off the coast flying food and water in to help those in need?  I am sure the US weren't the only ones there helping out and the people of the USA were not the only people to donate freely to help out, but please keep in mind that these were voluntary donations, not U.N. mandated donations that people made.  People are charitable when they feel that their money is going to good use, and some are even charitable when they do not have any indications that their money will be used wisely.

[Terry in Australia]

That's it Unkie Ernie, nothing wrong with gay men, that leaves more chicks for me! It's those damn Lesbians that I can't stand, those greedy biatches!

But I bet you love to watch em.

Well, it's not like I've got a choice Bobby, they're not gonna let me join in, I'm the enemy! 

[S-Dog]

That's it Unkie Ernie, nothing wrong with gay men, that leaves more chicks for me! It's those damn Lesbians that I can't stand, those greedy biatches!

But I bet you love to watch em.

Well, it's not like I've got a choice Bobby, they're not gonna let me join in, I'm the enemy! 

Just tuck your winky between your legs..... They will never know.

[Uncle Ernie]

I was talking about spell check for ME.  Where is it?

Anyway- I'm not talking about paying the rent and feeding the family from cradle to grave.  I'm talking, "hey- what's this lump?", "Little Billy has a high fever",  "Your kin is a funny colour and you're not your old self" kinds of things.  The ER should not be your health plan.  I'm talking about getting normal people back on their feet so they can go back to work.  Sure, some folks need long-term care, and moreso as the population ages.  But, when someone has an infection, bad tooth, high fever, pain in the gut, etc, they should go to a doctor instead of waiting until it blows up and gets catastrophic. 
When I was much younger and living in CA- alone- a car hit me and shattered my left leg.  It sure was nice to get Medical (I think it was called)to pick up the tab when I was bring home $50 bucks a week.  Even before the cast came off, I was taking the bus and hobbling off to work again.
BTW- I was on my feet all day because I cut hair. barbers and hairdressers are another group of independant contractors who don't get health insurance through work.

[BobbyR]

I am all for the Government staying out of our lives. The old timers were pretty bright and realized certain things needed to be regulated to keep an orderly society. Public utilities were one example. When you needed a phone, you called the phone company. When you needed power you called the power company. The power company is a very good example. When power was released form regulation you had all of these characters using power as a commodity. This gave you rolling brownouts in California as the power brokers traded it like pork belllies.  Enron was the best example of this. The US never had a Government Airline. They allowed private, highly regulated Airlines. The ticket prices were the same and there were very strict rules concerning customer service. If they lost your bag, they paid you for it. If they delayed you overnight they had to put you up for the night. The planes were clean, service was excellent on the planes were on time. Now the planes are filthy, always late, and the people working for the Airlines are plain crappy.
Now we have an Enron in healthcare, they are insurance companies. Insurance companies do not make money paying claims, they make money by collecting premiums and investing that money. The less they pay out, the more they have to invest. They are motivated to limit the amount they pay out, it is built into the system, there is no way around that.
If you had a National non profit Health Insurance company in which you paid 1% of your wages as Terry does and your employer was obliged to contribute as they do for Social Security. You would take out this profit and loss equation out of the picture. This would allow small employers to have employees covered. I know people who run small businesses and if they do offer benefits, it is a huge hit and prevents them for expanding and thereby hiring more people. What we have now is a handful of private insurers running their own private  Government with no oversight or meaningful regulation. They can do with you what they wish. They in fact have more power than the Government since there is no Constitution to regulate them. 
I am all for free enterprise, but not where people's lives are at stake. It is OK for Target, Walmart, Sears, IBM, Dell, HP, Exxon, Shell etc  battle it out in the marketplace. They can compete on price and if you don;t like one, the other may suit you.
I do not want some bean counter writing a memo saying that all claims for tumors less than 2mm should be denied to improve the bottom line. I will always put my personal ideology aside when it comes to the welfare of my fellow man.