Rick Santorum......World Class Prick

[BDKJMU]

There's a difference between "entitlement" and the need to have access to life-savings drugs at a reasonable price, IMO. I understand the fact that there has to be financial incentive for the pharmaceutical companies to continue researching new drugs. Something does tell me, however, that the majority of those companies are not even remotely close to losing money. To me, the inherent problem with the health-care system in this country is that it is big business, and I'm not sure that's really all that responsible from a moral sense. In practice, it's like saying everyone has the right to have access to life saving drugs, but if you can't pay for it, you're **** out of luck. And while I understand that there will always be the haves and have-nots, (I'm far from being a spread-the-wealth guy) I just don't understand what makes one person's life more valuable than another's. As far as the ridiculous Ipad comparison goes - not having access to the latest gadget isn't a social injustice. Not having access to needed drugs because they are astronomically expensive IS. I believe that the pharmaceutical companies are charging fair market prices for drugs about as much as I believe the oil companies are charging fair
market prices for gas. Both have had record profits in recent years. You do the math.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll do the math- the profit margin for "Big Oil" is below the avg profit margin of Fortune 500 companies. Exxon Mobil, the biggest whipping boy, in 2010 only had an 8% profit margin, and gasoline is one of their least profitable in terms of profit margin. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc have far higher profit margins. So according to your logic, those companies, and basically all Fortune 500 companies, are also not charging fair market prices.


http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/201 ... er-gallon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason that Exxon Mobil makes so much $ on such a small profit margin is due to the mind boggling volume of product they sell.

Sent from my keyboard using my fingers.

[BDKJMU]

Bottom line for the pharmaceuticals and "Big Oil" their responsibility isn't to make affordable drugs, or cheap gasoline. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. And tens of millions of Americans, including middle class folks, have $$ invested in the oil and pharmaceuticals in 401ks, pension funds, IRAs, etc who's portfolios are dependent on those companies remaining very profitable.

[EWURanger]

Bottom line for the pharmaceuticals and "Big Oil" their responsibility isn't to make affordable drugs, or cheap gasoline. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. And tens of millions of Americans, including middle class folks, have $$ invested in the oil and pharmaceuticals in 401ks, pension funds, IRAs, etc who's portfolios are dependent on those companies remaining very profitable.

I get that, and I'm one of those tens of millions of Americans that have money invested in said companies.

I do think it's worth mentioning that Google, Microsoft, and the other companies you used in your analogy aren't making billions selling people what are essentially necessities in this day and age. I clearly remember the price of gas being under a dollar in the late 1990's, and I don't believe for one fucking second that the price has justifiably risen 400% in what amounts to a relatively short amount of time. If I had to guess, health care costs have probably risen a similar percentage in the same amount of time - is this a result of a fair market appreciation in the value of those goods and services? Or is it the result of an artificial inflation of those goods and services? Are we paying 400% more now for tv's, automobiles, etc., than we were 14 or 15 years ago?

Just playing devil's advocate here and asking the questions. Is it morally acceptable for us as a Western Society to treat the health care industry purely as big business? Is it acceptable for the U.S., as a world-leader and its only super-power, to have such alarmingly unaffordable health care costs and the percentages of uninsured people that we do?

I have health care, and its at no cost to me. I'm thinking about the people that don't....who can't afford these outrageously expensive drugs, but need them to survive.

[BDKJMU]

Bottom line for the pharmaceuticals and "Big Oil" their responsibility isn't to make affordable drugs, or cheap gasoline. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. And tens of millions of Americans, including middle class folks, have $$ invested in the oil and pharmaceuticals in 401ks, pension funds, IRAs, etc who's portfolios are dependent on those companies remaining very profitable.

I get that, and I'm one of those tens of millions of Americans that have money invested in said companies.

I do think it's worth mentioning that Google, Microsoft, and the other companies you used in your analogy aren't making billions selling people what are essentially necessities in this day and age. I clearly remember the price of gas being under a dollar in the late 1990's, and I don't believe for one **** second that the price has justifiably risen 400% in what amounts to a relatively short amount of time. If I had to guess, health care costs have probably risen a similar percentage in the same amount of time - is this a result of a fair market appreciation in the value of those goods and services? Or is it the result of an artificial inflation of those goods and services? Are we paying %400 now for tv's, automobiles, etc?

Just playing devil's advocate here and asking the questions.

Since the late 90 with gas have had:
-regular inflation
-worldwide demand has increased greatly (Biggest drivers India & China demand has increased exponentially).
-US hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 yrs.
-#of EPA required boutique blends has increased.
-Taxes have increased.
-Speculators have driven up prices.
-right now we have a war premium built in (Iran).

So its easy to see why the price of gas has justifiably risen about 350% since the late 90s.

Because of technological & manufacturing advances inflation adjusted the prices of electronics has dropped tremendously and cars haven't gone up much. But comparing that to the energy sector is apples to oranges.

[kalm]

.

It's the same old thing of people thinking they're born with the world oweing them what they need. It's crap.

The reality is that what Santorum said will hurt him politically because the entitlement mentality is so entrenched. But the real problem is that the entitlement mentality is so entrenched.

Yeah! Those lazy little infants need to EARN their mothers milk. Do 'em some good.

[EWURanger]

I get that, and I'm one of those tens of millions of Americans that have money invested in said companies.

I do think it's worth mentioning that Google, Microsoft, and the other companies you used in your analogy aren't making billions selling people what are essentially necessities in this day and age. I clearly remember the price of gas being under a dollar in the late 1990's, and I don't believe for one **** second that the price has justifiably risen 400% in what amounts to a relatively short amount of time. If I had to guess, health care costs have probably risen a similar percentage in the same amount of time - is this a result of a fair market appreciation in the value of those goods and services? Or is it the result of an artificial inflation of those goods and services? Are we paying 400% more now for tv's, automobiles, etc?

Just playing devil's advocate here and asking the questions.

Since the late 90 with gas have had:
-regular inflation
-worldwide demand has increased greatly (Biggest drivers India & China demand has increased exponentially).
-US hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 yrs.
-#of EPA required boutique blends has increased.
-Taxes have increased.
-Speculators have driven up prices.
-right now we have a war premium built in (Iran).

So its easy to see why the price of gas has justifiably risen about 350% since the late 90s.

Because of technological & manufacturing advances inflation adjusted the prices of electronics has dropped tremendously and cars haven't gone up much. But comparing that to the energy sector is apples to oranges.

I agree about the comparisons. And while I understand the different variables that have gone into the rise in cost of a barrel of oil, I still don't believe that a 400% increase in cost in the time frame that I referenced is really indicative of the true
market value of that product, and I've read plenty of material that would support that view.

But we are getting off track here. You never answered my question RE: Health Care - is it morally acceptable for our society to treat our Health Care System essentially as big business? Is it acceptable for such a large percentage of Americans that do not have access to health insurance to be stuck with ridiculously expensive bills for drugs that they are dependant on to live? Not to mention even basic medical services.......

And this problem isn't just specific to poor people, either. There are many, many, hard working people out there that are not properly insured, and are effected big-time by the outrageous cost of something that every citizen should have reasonable access to. That's really what is at the crux of the matter here. Throw out the BS rhetoric about how the free market dictates the costs of Health Care, and ask yourself - is it right that people have to either die or live with serious disability if they cannot get access to these outrageously expensive drugs.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a certain amount of social injustice in our health care system is just kidding themselves. Comparatively speaking, if you look at the health care systems in Canada or the UK, there are some imperfections there - but for the most part people have access to things like life-saving drugs, and won't be either tossed out of a Hospital or stuck with massive medical expenses if they're not insured. I probably have a slightly different perspective on this issue having lived in the UK for two years, but I wonder which system is better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Since the late 90 with gas have had:
-regular inflation
-worldwide demand has increased greatly (Biggest drivers India & China demand has increased exponentially).
-US hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 yrs.
-#of EPA required boutique blends has increased.
-Taxes have increased.
-Speculators have driven up prices.
-right now we have a war premium built in (Iran).

So its easy to see why the price of gas has justifiably risen about 350% since the late 90s.

Because of technological & manufacturing advances inflation adjusted the prices of electronics has dropped tremendously and cars haven't gone up much. But comparing that to the energy sector is apples to oranges.

I agree about the comparisons. And while I understand the different variables that have gone into the rise in cost of a barrel of oil, I still don't believe that a 400% increase in cost in the time frame that I referenced is really indicative of the true
market value of that product, and I've read plenty of material that would support that view.

But we are getting off track here. You never answered my question RE: Health Care - is it morally acceptable for our society to treat our Health Care System essentially as big business? Is it acceptable for such a large percentage of Americans that do not have access to health insurance to be stuck with ridiculously expensive bills for drugs that they are dependant on to live? Not to mention even basic medical services.......

And this problem isn't just specific to poor people, either. There are many, many, hard working people out there that are not properly insured, and are effected big-time by the outrageous cost of something that every citizen should have reasonable access to. That's really what is at the crux of the matter here. Throw out the BS rhetoric about how the free market dictates the costs of Health Care, and ask yourself - is it right that people have to either die or live with serious disability if they cannot get access to these outrageously expensive drugs.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a certain amount of social injustice in our health care system is just kidding themselves. Comparatively speaking, if you look at the health care systems in Canada or the UK, there are sime imperfections there - but for the most part people have access to things like life-saving drugs, and won't be either tossed out of a Hospital or stuck with massive medical expenses if they're not insured. I probably have a slightly different perspective on this issue having lived in the UK for two years, but I wonder which system is better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to mention the inflation in prices do to for-profit insurance and all insurance seperating the consumer from out of pocket expenses.

In answer to your question, hell yes it's a moral issue and we are struggling at it.

Solid work Ranger.

[BDKJMU]

Since the late 90 with gas have had:
-regular inflation
-worldwide demand has increased greatly (Biggest drivers India & China demand has increased exponentially).
-US hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 yrs.
-#of EPA required boutique blends has increased.
-Taxes have increased.
-Speculators have driven up prices.
-right now we have a war premium built in (Iran).

So its easy to see why the price of gas has justifiably risen about 350% since the late 90s.

Because of technological & manufacturing advances inflation adjusted the prices of electronics has dropped tremendously and cars haven't gone up much. But comparing that to the energy sector is apples to oranges.

I agree about the comparisons. And while I understand the different variables that have gone into the rise in cost of a barrel of oil, I still don't believe that a 400% increase in cost in the time frame that I referenced is really indicative of the true
market value of that product, and I've read plenty of material that would support that view.

But we are getting off track here. You never answered my question RE: Health Care - is it morally acceptable for our society to treat our Health Care System essentially as big business? Is it acceptable for such a large percentage of Americans that do not have access to health insurance to be stuck with ridiculously expensive bills for drugs that they are dependant on to live? Not to mention even basic medical services.......

And this problem isn't just specific to poor people, either. There are many, many, hard working people out there that are not properly insured, and are effected big-time by the outrageous cost of something that every citizen should have reasonable access to. That's really what is at the crux of the matter here. Throw out the BS rhetoric about how the free market dictates the costs of Health Care, and ask yourself - is it right that people have to either die or live with serious disability if they cannot get access to these outrageously expensive drugs.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a certain amount of social injustice in our health care system is just kidding themselves. Comparatively speaking, if you look at the health care systems in Canada or the UK, there are some imperfections there - but for the most part people have access to things like life-saving drugs, and won't be either tossed out of a Hospital or stuck with massive medical expenses if they're not insured. I probably have a slightly different perspective on this issue having lived in the UK for two years, but I wonder which system is better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You must have been editing your earlier post right when I was replying because it stopped at the Devil's advocate line.

There isn't a "large percentage" of Americans that don't have access to health care. The claim that 50 million "Americans" didn't have health insurance as of 2010 that a lot of media outlets trumpeted last yr is bogus because included illegals, and illegal immigrants aren't Americans.

So about 40 million people out of about 300 million US citizens and legal immigrants (and legal immigrants who aren't USC aren't American's either) don't have health insurance.
-Many of those that don't are poor on medicaid.
-Some of them chose not to purchase it for various reasons (one of them being many of them young, single, and don't want to pay for something that costs so much that they feel they likely won't need it).

So you're talking about a VERY SMALL percentage of people who are uninsured who:
-are USC or legal immigrants.
-make too much to qualify for medicaid.
-absolutely cannot afford to purchase it.

On the one hand for that small percentage not to have it isn't morally acceptable. On the other hand screwing up what is the most advanced health care system in the world for the 90-95% of the people who are covered isn't morally acceptable either.

The only reason all these drugs that some people can't afford exists is because pharma is a big business. That's because of all the billions that have been poured into R&D over the years. You take the big business out of pharma then you take away the massive amount of R&D $$, then you can kiss goodbye continued breakthroughs in new medications that the US is a world leader in. The breakthroughs aren't going to come from other advanced nations because they don't spend the R&D because it isn't big business.

[Grizalltheway]

I agree about the comparisons. And while I understand the different variables that have gone into the rise in cost of a barrel of oil, I still don't believe that a 400% increase in cost in the time frame that I referenced is really indicative of the true
market value of that product, and I've read plenty of material that would support that view.

But we are getting off track here. You never answered my question RE: Health Care - is it morally acceptable for our society to treat our Health Care System essentially as big business? Is it acceptable for such a large percentage of Americans that do not have access to health insurance to be stuck with ridiculously expensive bills for drugs that they are dependant on to live? Not to mention even basic medical services.......

And this problem isn't just specific to poor people, either. There are many, many, hard working people out there that are not properly insured, and are effected big-time by the outrageous cost of something that every citizen should have reasonable access to. That's really what is at the crux of the matter here. Throw out the BS rhetoric about how the free market dictates the costs of Health Care, and ask yourself - is it right that people have to either die or live with serious disability if they cannot get access to these outrageously expensive drugs.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a certain amount of social injustice in our health care system is just kidding themselves. Comparatively speaking, if you look at the health care systems in Canada or the UK, there are some imperfections there - but for the most part people have access to things like life-saving drugs, and won't be either tossed out of a Hospital or stuck with massive medical expenses if they're not insured. I probably have a slightly different perspective on this issue having lived in the UK for two years, but I wonder which system is better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You must have been editing your earlier post right when I was replying because it stopped at the Devil's advocate line.

There isn't a "large percentage" of Americans that don't have access to health care. The claim that 50 million "Americans" didn't have health insurance as of 2010 that a lot of media outlets trumpeted last yr is bogus because included illegals, and illegal immigrants aren't Americans.

So about 40 million people out of about 300 million US citizens and legal immigrants (and legal immigrants who aren't USC aren't American's either) don't have health insurance.
-Many of those that don't are poor on medicaid.
-Some of them chose not to purchase it for various reasons (one of them being many of them young, single, and don't want to pay for something that costs so much that they feel they likely won't need it).

So you're talking about a VERY SMALL percentage of people who are uninsured who:
-are USC or legal immigrants.
-make too much to qualify for medicaid.
-absolutely cannot afford to purchase it.

On the one hand for that small percentage not to have it isn't morally acceptable. On the other hand screwing up what is the most advanced health care system in the world for the 90-95% of the people who are covered isn't morally acceptable either.

The only reason all these drugs that some people can't afford exists is because pharma is a big business. That's because of all the billions that have been poured into R&D over the years. You take the big business out of pharma then you take away the massive amount of R&D $$, then you can kiss goodbye continued breakthroughs in new medications that the US is a world leader in. The breakthroughs aren't going to come from other advanced nations because they don't spend the R&D because it isn't big business.

GlaxoSmithKline is British.

[EWURanger]

I agree about the comparisons. And while I understand the different variables that have gone into the rise in cost of a barrel of oil, I still don't believe that a 400% increase in cost in the time frame that I referenced is really indicative of the true
market value of that product, and I've read plenty of material that would support that view.

But we are getting off track here. You never answered my question RE: Health Care - is it morally acceptable for our society to treat our Health Care System essentially as big business? Is it acceptable for such a large percentage of Americans that do not have access to health insurance to be stuck with ridiculously expensive bills for drugs that they are dependant on to live? Not to mention even basic medical services.......

And this problem isn't just specific to poor people, either. There are many, many, hard working people out there that are not properly insured, and are effected big-time by the outrageous cost of something that every citizen should have reasonable access to. That's really what is at the crux of the matter here. Throw out the BS rhetoric about how the free market dictates the costs of Health Care, and ask yourself - is it right that people have to either die or live with serious disability if they cannot get access to these outrageously expensive drugs.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a certain amount of social injustice in our health care system is just kidding themselves. Comparatively speaking, if you look at the health care systems in Canada or the UK, there are some imperfections there - but for the most part people have access to things like life-saving drugs, and won't be either tossed out of a Hospital or stuck with massive medical expenses if they're not insured. I probably have a slightly different perspective on this issue having lived in the UK for two years, but I wonder which system is better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You must have been editing your earlier post right when I was replying because it stopped at the Devil's advocate line.

There isn't a "large percentage" of Americans that don't have access to health care. The claim that 50 million "Americans" didn't have health insurance as of 2010 that a lot of media outlets trumpeted last yr is bogus because included illegals, and illegal immigrants aren't Americans.

So about 40 million people out of about 300 million US citizens and legal immigrants (and legal immigrants who aren't USC aren't American's either) don't have health insurance.
-Many of those that don't are poor on medicaid.
-Some of them chose not to purchase it for various reasons (one of them being many of them young, single, and don't want to pay for something that costs so much that they feel they likely won't need it).

So you're talking about a VERY SMALL percentage of people who are uninsured who:
-are USC or legal immigrants.
-make too much to qualify for medicaid.
-absolutely cannot afford to purchase it.

On the one hand for that small percentage not to have it isn't morally acceptable. On the other hand screwing up what is the most advanced health care system in the world for the 90-95% of the people who are covered isn't morally acceptable either.

The only reason all these drugs that some people can't afford exists is because pharma is a big business. That's because of all the billions that have been poured into R&D over the years. You take the big business out of pharma then you take away the massive amount of R&D $$, then you can kiss goodbye continued breakthroughs in new medications that the US is a world leader in. The breakthroughs aren't going to come from other advanced nations because they don't spend the R&D because it isn't big business.

If 90-95 percent of people in this country were actually covered, would we really be having this conversation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

You must have been editing your earlier post right when I was replying because it stopped at the Devil's advocate line.

There isn't a "large percentage" of Americans that don't have access to health care. The claim that 50 million "Americans" didn't have health insurance as of 2010 that a lot of media outlets trumpeted last yr is bogus because included illegals, and illegal immigrants aren't Americans.

So about 40 million people out of about 300 million US citizens and legal immigrants (and legal immigrants who aren't USC aren't American's either) don't have health insurance.
-Many of those that don't are poor on medicaid.
-Some of them chose not to purchase it for various reasons (one of them being many of them young, single, and don't want to pay for something that costs so much that they feel they likely won't need it).

So you're talking about a VERY SMALL percentage of people who are uninsured who:
-are USC or legal immigrants.
-make too much to qualify for medicaid.
-absolutely cannot afford to purchase it.

On the one hand for that small percentage not to have it isn't morally acceptable. On the other hand screwing up what is the most advanced health care system in the world for the 90-95% of the people who are covered isn't morally acceptable either.

The only reason all these drugs that some people can't afford exists is because pharma is a big business. That's because of all the billions that have been poured into R&D over the years. You take the big business out of pharma then you take away the massive amount of R&D $$, then you can kiss goodbye continued breakthroughs in new medications that the US is a world leader in. The breakthroughs aren't going to come from other advanced nations because they don't spend the R&D because it isn't big business.

If 90-95 percent of people in this country were actually covered, would we really be having this conversation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've got a friend here in PA:
-full time job with no bennies/health insurance
-makes too much to get medicaid
-probably couldn't afford private insurance (he's close to 60)
And he is covered by some PA state program. He mentioned it once- forgot the name of it, but wasn't medicaid I don't think. He's got Crohn's disease, and has had almost everything paid for.

Between people with insurance, on medicaid, medicare, CHIP, other state programs, etc and excluding illegals, 90-95% have some form of coverage.

[mainejeff]

There's a difference between "entitlement" and the need to have access to life-savings drugs at a reasonable price, IMO. I understand the fact that there has to be financial incentive for the pharmaceutical companies to continue researching new drugs. Something does tell me, however, that the majority of those companies are not even remotely close to losing money. To me, the inherent problem with the health-care system in this country is that it is big business, and I'm not sure that's really all that responsible from a moral sense. In practice, it's like saying everyone has the right to have access to life saving drugs, but if you can't pay for it, you're **** out of luck. And while I understand that there will always be the haves and have-nots, (I'm far from being a spread-the-wealth guy) I just don't understand what makes one person's life more valuable than another's. As far as the ridiculous Ipad comparison goes - not having access to the latest gadget isn't a social injustice. Not having access to needed drugs because they are astronomically expensive IS. I believe that the pharmaceutical companies are charging fair market prices for drugs about as much as I believe the oil companies are charging fair
market prices for gas. Both have had record profits in recent years. You do the math.

[mainejeff]

Bottom line for the pharmaceuticals and "Big Oil" their responsibility isn't to make affordable drugs, or cheap gasoline. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. And tens of millions of Americans, including middle class folks, have $$ invested in the oil and pharmaceuticals in 401ks, pension funds, IRAs, etc who's portfolios are dependent on those companies remaining very profitable.

I get that, and I'm one of those tens of millions of Americans that have money invested in said companies.

I do think it's worth mentioning that Google, Microsoft, and the other companies you used in your analogy aren't making billions selling people what are essentially necessities in this day and age. I clearly remember the price of gas being under a dollar in the late 1990's, and I don't believe for one **** second that the price has justifiably risen 400% in what amounts to a relatively short amount of time. If I had to guess, health care costs have probably risen a similar percentage in the same amount of time - is this a result of a fair market appreciation in the value of those goods and services? Or is it the result of an artificial inflation of those goods and services? Are we paying 400% more now for tv's, automobiles, etc., than we were 14 or 15 years ago?

Just playing devil's advocate here and asking the questions. Is it morally acceptable for us as a Western Society to treat the health care industry purely as big business? Is it acceptable for the U.S., as a world-leader and its only super-power, to have such alarmingly unaffordable health care costs and the percentages of uninsured people that we do?

I have health care, and its at no cost to me. I'm thinking about the people that don't....who can't afford these outrageously expensive drugs, but need them to survive.

Compassionate Conservative.

[JohnStOnge]

There's a difference between "entitlement" and the need to have access to life-savings drugs at a reasonable price, IMO.

I don't think so. If someone thinks that the fact that they need something means that someone should in some way guarantee them access to it that is the entitlement mentality. Thinking that something should be "reasonably priced" because you need to buy it in order to live is the entitlement mentality. What is "reasonably priced" anyway? I think that is code for "something I can afford."

[mainejeff]

There's a difference between "entitlement" and the need to have access to life-savings drugs at a reasonable price, IMO.

I don't think so. If someone thinks that the fact that they need something means that someone should in some way guarantee them access to it that is the entitlement mentality. Thinking that something should be "reasonably priced" because you need to buy it in order to live is the entitlement mentality. What is "reasonably priced" anyway? I think that is code for "something I can afford."

You obviously don't want a democratic civilized society to continue in this country. More half-baked ideology from one of our resident anarchists.

[kalm]

There's a difference between "entitlement" and the need to have access to life-savings drugs at a reasonable price, IMO.

I don't think so. If someone thinks that the fact that they need something means that someone should in some way guarantee them access to it that is the entitlement mentality. Thinking that something should be "reasonably priced" because you need to buy it in order to live is the entitlement mentality. What is "reasonably priced" anyway? I think that is code for "something I can afford."

John,

Your community, your government brought you the transplanted trout you flyfished for in the pond in Louisiana. We're a we society and better because of it.

[JohnStOnge]

John,

Your community, your government brought you the transplanted trout you flyfished for in the pond in Louisiana. We're a we society and better because of it.

I did not think I was entitled to have them transplant trout so I could fish for them. Aside from that, that project was not targeted for any particular individual.

If I were starving and had no money to buy food, I would gratefully accept voluntary charity so that I could eat. But I would not feel that I am entitled to have other people forced to give me food or money to buy it.

[kalm]

John,

Your community, your government brought you the transplanted trout you flyfished for in the pond in Louisiana. We're a we society and better because of it.

I did not think I was entitled to have them transplant trout so I could fish for them. Aside from that, that project was not targeted for any particular individual.

If I were starving and had no money to buy food, I would gratefully accept voluntary charity so that I could eat. But I would not feel that I am entitled to have other people forced to give me food or money to buy it.

John,

You feel entitled to a great number of things in your life. Modern roads to drive on, a public education system, environmental protection etc. You enjoy all these things and expect them.

[JohnStOnge]

You obviously don't want a democratic civilized society to continue in this country. More half-baked ideology from one of our resident anarchists.

It is quite possible to have a civilized, democratic society without the entitlement mentality. All it takes is people who don't have the entitlement mentality.

Getting rid of the entitlement state is not anarchy. For instance: Laws against murder, burglary, rape, etc. would still exist. Government would still build or facilitate the building of public infrastructure. So on and so forth. There would still be plenty for government to do. It just wouldn't be trying to ensure that the needs of each individual or met.

Unfortunately, we have had a number of generations now grow up in an environment in which the premise is that if one has a need and can't satisfy it for themselves then government is responsible for seeing to it that it is satisfied.

[mainejeff]

John,

Your community, your government brought you the transplanted trout you flyfished for in the pond in Louisiana. We're a we society and better because of it.

I did not think I was entitled to have them transplant trout so I could fish for them. Aside from that, that project was not targeted for any particular individual.

If I were starving and had no money to buy food, I would gratefully accept voluntary charity so that I could eat. But I would not feel that I am entitled to have other people forced to give me food or money to buy it.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about people and make blanket statements. Obviously, you feel vastly superior to the rest of us.....and want ensuing anarchy to prop up your half-baked ideology and agendas.

Yes, St. Wronge.......it would be nice to be one of only a few people on Earth. But that ain't reality. Your "let them eat cake" attitude (VERY Francais of you. ) might sound good to Faux News Groupies and Tea Baggers.......but it ain't gonna fly in a democratic society like ours.

[JohnStOnge]

John,

You feel entitled to a great number of things in your life. Modern roads to drive on, a public education system, environmental protection etc. You enjoy all these things and expect them.

I have often wondered about the concept of public education. Sure, I will take advantage of it since it is there. But I don't know if other people should have been forced to pay for my kids' education.

Things like roads are general infrastructure that are part of the concept of providing an atmosphere in which individuals can succeed. It is not the same as saying you are going to guarantee that an individual's specific need is met.

[kalm]

John,

You're a fan of McNeese State, a college football program with a rich history of success. In fact, you probably expect that success. You also like talking about McNeese State football on an internet message board. If this site went down, or you lost your connection you might even be upset...

[JohnStOnge]

but it ain't gonna fly in a democratic society like ours.

You're right about a "democratic society like ours." But not because "ours" is what one would have to have in order to be a "democratic society." Ours is a "democratic society" populated by a critical mass of people with the entitlement mentality and they can use the weight of their votes in the democratic process to enforce the entitlement state.\

But a "democratic society" does not have to be an entitlement state.

[JohnStOnge]

John,

You're a fan of McNeese State, a college football program with a rich history of success. In fact, you probably expect that success. You also like talking about McNeese State football on an internet message board. If this site went down, or you lost your connection you might even be upset...

I would be disappointed but I do not think I am entitled to any of those things.

[kalm]

John,

You feel entitled to a great number of things in your life. Modern roads to drive on, a public education system, environmental protection etc. You enjoy all these things and expect them.

I have often wondered about the concept of public education. Sure, I will take advantage of it since it is there. But I don't know if other people should have been forced to pay for my kids' education.

Things like roads are general infrastructure that are part of the concept of providing an atmosphere in which individuals can succeed. It is not the same as saying you are going to guarantee that an individual's specific need is met.

What about human infrastructure? Isn't a healthy workforce a more productive workforce? Or sending a small child to class without an empty belly? Isn't that kid more likely to learn and climb out of the whole his parents birthed him into?