Yes there are schools that should shut down because they don't educate their students properly but they won't because government pays for it, and once government starts paying for something it never stops no longer what the results are. In Detroit, the Detroit Public School system sends more people to Jail and welfare then it does to college. As for life expectancy, I mentioned it in another post that lifestyle factors play a bigger role in life expectancy then does health care.
Don't send them to school then. Homeschool. Homeschoolers outperform public school students by wide margin anyway, so why would you want to send your child to public school so that he can end up working at McDonalds. I have a child in public school, and by the quality of 'education' they provide it looks like we won't be sending her back next year, even though private school is out of question If you can't afford fire dept., you can probably still afford a fire distinguisher, and I think using fire-resistant building materials makes sense. Or don't buy a house. Or cut your other expenses. Or learn a trade and get a better job But the most important point is that poverty is the problem of socialised economy. In free economy, people can afford much more because they are not spending money on funding wasteful government services
So you will accept that USA will be full of people that never went to school, ok. Powerty is not a problem in because of socialized economy, you clearly have no idea about what either free or socialized economy are. Give me an example of one country that have free economy and no powerty. In your free economy world, how will a chronic sick guy get health care?
No offense, but you seem to be out of touch with reality and more interested in getting your adrenaline up. I'll pass
My adrenaline is not important But you would not pass if you could answer the questions. Give me an example of one country that have free economy and no powerty. In your free economy world, how will a chronic sick guy get health care?
First, name a country with a free economy. By paying for it himself, by charity, through family, etc. If you weren't taxed for it, you could pay for it on demand. You could afford to buy insurance for it. Your relatives, friends and neighbors would be able to provide or save for an emergency or ongoing situation. There will never be zero poverty. There will never be absolute equality. These are logical fallacies, because all things are not equal, and the pursuit of making "the people" entirely equal removes individuality and removes the incentive to evolve. This is marxism. What demosfen is talking about is Libertarianism. The idea is that as a human being, you have certain basic and absolute rights. Those rights are yours, as long as you do not cause harm to the rights of others. You have a right to property. You can own something, it cannot be taken from you and given to another. It cannot be destroyed. It cannot be subverted, polluted or trespassed. Libertarianism is a very high ideal, but it's roots are in the rights of the individual, not the rights of groups. That you, login, have rights and I cannot make you do anything against your will. You always have self determination, and that involves deciding if you will help others, not taking away from you by force (government coercion) and giving it to those that I (government) determine are in need.
I'm not sure what makes the OP think that universal health care doesn't work in Canada, but you're quite wrong. While there are problems with wait times, funding, etc, things are quite peachy for the most part. The only person who would complain about Canadian health care is a Canadian who has been spoiled by not having to experience the health care systems in other countries. Regardless, how can health care not be universal by common sense alone? What better place does any given government have to spend money?
That's based upon the assumption that government has the right to take people's money and redistribute it.
guerilla is a Ron Paul minion. I see it now . I like the guy, hes probably the best candidate right now for presidnet and do hope he wins. But I don't agree with all his policies. Some may say some of his policies are too radical like removing education department and all that. Actually, anything could happen, they change might work out for the better too. I can kinda see why you are againist universal healthcare now. As long as there's a system where everyone can look after themselves and for the people that can't, someone is able to assist them, I think its ok. But assuming US is going to resume everything, meaning still having the IRS department, I think unverisal healthcare would be better, than the system you got right now. BTW what is Ron Paul's outlook on Gun Control???
True, and I'd like to see a different system in place, that's for sure. In the meantime though, most governments of the world do take our money and redistribute it. I'm all for optimism but realism is key as well.
I see where your coming from Palsys. Your canadain like me, and I'm also happy to have unversial healthcare. Just to put it out there anyone who's going to say that unversial healthcare communism then frankly I think communism is a great thing. But with that said. A complete change in government like that doesn't mean its not realistic. I'm sure it adjust itself to make it work out. I mean looking at their system right with regards to healthcare, I think it won't be able to get worst. But Ron Paul will definitely have a tough time ahead of him. He's going to have a lot of opposition.
Actually, I am and always have been a small government conservative. I don't agree with all of his policies either. But I agree with many of them, and he's probably the most honest politician running. I like to ask people who mention this. What does the Department of Education do now? Ron is talking about abolishing it at the Federal level, and returning it to the State Level. Likewise with health care. Move the center of power closer to the people, not further away. The opportunity for different states with different rules means that people have options. If you don't like Sex Ed in schools, then you can move to a state that does not support it. If you want to send your kids to a school that emphasizes one curriculum over another, you can do that as well. I'm against Universal Healthcare by the government, not by the people. If we all agreed to protect and care for our neighbors and family members, that would be ok. I don't believe that the government through central economic planning is the most efficient way to deliver services to the people. We all know that they are lobbied by massive corporations and many of our politicians are absolutely corrupt. These are not the people who should be deciding how much health, what kind of health and when we can get health. Your needs may be different than mine. We can't establish a master level of supply that doesn't reflect individual needs. Ron is 100% for 2nd Amendment rights. He just won an award from the Gun Owners of America a few weeks back. The guarantee that we will never successfully be invaded is to have a citizenry that can establish militias, and whenever the government has all of the guns, or the majority of the guns, there is the potential for abuse. The Founding Fathers recognized this, and that is why we have a right to bear arms. I forget which one it was, perhaps Washington who said (paraphrasing), America is a Constitutional Republic btw, not a democracy.
Hmm, I really disagree with Ron Paul Gun Policy but like you I do agree with the majority of his other policies. Lets just put this this way, There has been lots of shooting in the US. And now in Canada also a lot, much due to gang violence. And where are all these guns coming from??? Down from the US. By allowing more guns laying around, more will come down to Canada and I'm just generally againist having guns.
And sometimes cops shoot guns and hit innocents, or they shoot unarmed people they are chasing. The problem is, guns exist. If you deny guns to one group, the groups with guns has all of the authority. You can no more control the sale of weapons than you can the sale of drugs. No more than you can control stopping someone from hurting themselves, or someone from thinking about violence. You can't stop consensual gay sex. You can't stop people giving birth. You can't stop people from saying mean things. When they do find a way to stop all of these things, we won't be human anymore. You can't legislate morality.
That's where I would disagree with you. Maybe this is because where you were born. But 30 years ago in Canada, there was literally no guns available. Like right now I know people with illegal guns. There's just guns everywhere. I can see what you saying about the people with guns will have all the authority. But if Ron Paul teared down the Government from the Federal level, I believe if a revolt was meant to happen it wouldn't require the needs for guns. Tearing the government at federal level down will already greatly reduce the threat of a country turning out like Oceania. Which is what I'm getting your concerns are at. Although, I see Ron Paul and he abides to the consituition, which I do think should be. I think that times has changed and guns for everyone is no longer necessary at this time. This is not to say that i'm taking the consitution lightly like Bush is but ya you get my point.
I know the second I put my hand on a gun, I get a murderous feeling that just won't go away till the blood stops flowin'!
Consider this. Vermont, the only state in the US where you don't need a license to concealed-carry, is second safest state in the country. Here in NY, guns are practically banned, we don't have any. So we've had series of armed home invasions. Can you imagine an armed home invasion in Vermont? One would have to be insane to try that. There was a news story about a car renting company in Florida that stopped putting it's sticker on their cars, because criminals used it to identify out-of-state tourists who are less likely to be armed than locals. Clinton and Guiliani are not dumb, they know perfectly well that gun control causes crime. They want to take away our guns for the same reason the founding fathers gave them to us - they don't want you to be able to defend yourself from the totalitarism
You can do it another way, just take out all the guns in the control. If you take away some and got a state that has guns, then you got a problem. Since guns could easily move into the other state by crimmials.