"Obamacare"

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

My work pays the full amount for employee, spouse, and family so sometimes I get a little annoyed that the breeders get more benefit than I do. Like go ahead and give me some of that cash you're saving from me not selfishly bringing children into the world

Take it easy, you'll be the last one laid off.

[renocat]

It takes a village to care for the little turds.  libs needs relish in doing his part in caring for the wards of the state.  I like breaks for breeders.  It counters all of the free geezer stuff.

[catastrophe]

Why is not getting a tax break "penalizing"? Do you think the government penalizes people who donate less than 40% of their income to charity?

[Mrs. Gooch]

It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.

Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?

[chum1]

It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.

Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?

China is probably a good example there.

[Emo EMAW]

It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.

Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?

Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes? 

[Mrs. Gooch]

It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.

Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?

Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?

Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)

[Emo EMAW]

It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.

Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?

Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?

Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)

Isn't the argument that govt run health care is a net savings to society?  Because of preventative health care, decrease in lost production work days, etc?  By that, one could deduce that rearing more kids with better-than-average access to health care would result in more adults with productive jobs paying taxes. 

[Mrs. Gooch]

It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.

Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?

Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?

Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)

Isn't the argument that govt run health care is a net savings to society?  Because of preventative health care, decrease in lost production work days, etc?  By that, one could deduce that rearing more kids with better-than-average access to health care would result in more adults with productive jobs paying taxes.

Except at very low population densities, increased population density actually causes higher costs per capita for services such as police, schools, infrastructure, etc. Therefore the increase in tax-paying population is not self sustaining. Not to mention that those people are going to be drawing on government service for a while before they become tax paying adults.

[Emo EMAW]

It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.

Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?

Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?

Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)

Isn't the argument that govt run health care is a net savings to society?  Because of preventative health care, decrease in lost production work days, etc?  By that, one could deduce that rearing more kids with better-than-average access to health care would result in more adults with productive jobs paying taxes.

Except at very low population densities, increased population density actually causes higher costs per capita for services such as police, schools, infrastructure, etc. Therefore the increase in tax-paying population is not self sustaining. Not to mention that those people are going to be drawing on government service for a while before they become tax paying adults.

Define the difference between low and high, and relate it to the US.

[star seed 7]

the best argument for government run healthcare is that it's the right and moral thing to do

[Rage Against the McKee]

the best argument for government run healthcare is that it's the right and moral thing to do

Also, every country that has it pays way less for healthcare than we currently pay.

[Emo EMAW]

the best argument for government run healthcare is that it's the right and moral thing to do

Health care is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  I'm not sure if you meant it like that, I don't think you did, but wanted to distinguish that.

[star seed 7]

i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh

[Cartierfor3]

i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh

not the constitution

[Rage Against the McKee]

Healthcare probably should be a constitutional right. Somebody should propose an amendment.

[star seed 7]

i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh

not the constitution

so

[Mrs. Gooch]

Define the difference between low and high, and relate it to the US.

250 persons per square mile.

Right now the average population density for the entire US is about 84 ppsm; although there are currently 11 states at or above 250 and 10 more getting close. Not to mention that many urban areas are way above this, in the tens of thousands of people per square mile.

Since people tend to live in cities, the effective population density is much higher than just the total population divided by the total land area of the U.S. For instance, Kansas City has a population density of about 1500 ppsm.

[Mrs. Gooch]

i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh

not the constitution

so

Well it says life, not health. And if you go to an ER in a life and death situation they have to treat you; so I think we already got this covered.

[CNS]

If this conversation is going to be about the govt only doing stuff in the constitution, and nothing else, then we have a big problem.

[Emo EMAW]

If this conversation is going to be about the govt only doing stuff in the constitution, and nothing else, then we have a big problem.

Well a lot of people posting in this thread believe that even things specifically guaranteed by the Constitution aren't really rights.  So, try to figure that one out.

[star seed 7]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[sys]

there's actually no constitutional right to arrow elk.  in fact, the founders, in their infinite wisdom, specifically refrained from outlining any right to hunt animals in colorado at all.   

[Mrs. Gooch]

there's actually no constitutional right to arrow elk.  in fact, the founders, in their infinite wisdom, specifically refrained from outlining any right to hunt animals in colorado at all.   

I think that falls under the pursuit of happiness or something. 

[CNS]

If this conversation is going to be about the govt only doing stuff in the constitution, and nothing else, then we have a big problem.

Well a lot of people posting in this thread believe that even things specifically guaranteed by the Constitution aren't really rights.  So, try to figure that one out.

I just had a meeting with a rep of a company my company uses for advertising.  She was outlining the ability of mobile ads and how they target ppl.  It is amazing how little privacy anyone who participates in technology has.  Infuriatingly.  It's pretty mumped up.