Speechless...

[KvHagedorn]

Well Emperor Honorius banned gladiatorial combat due to his Christian sentiments.. I suppose that was a bad thing though.

I think this amendment is a pretty worthless thing to pursue, personally, but it's not like free speech is absolute anyway. You can't just up and slander someone or reveal military secrets on the air legally, either. Free speech was always meant to be primarily a thing to allow political dissent. Flag burning is a pretty moronic form of political dissent, however, and actually has always worked against the burners, marking them as hate-filled inarticulate nihilists without any opinions of merit. Let them burn the flag if they want to.

[Gurm]

Well Emperor Honorius banned gladiatorial combat due to his Christian sentiments.. I suppose that was a bad thing though.

I think this amendment is a pretty worthless thing to pursue, personally, but it's not like free speech is absolute anyway. You can't just up and slander someone or reveal military secrets on the air legally, either. Free speech was always meant to be primarily a thing to allow political dissent. Flag burning is a pretty moronic form of political dissent, however, and actually has always worked against the burners, marking them as hate-filled inarticulate nihilists without any opinions of merit. Let them burn the flag if they want to.

See I actually pretty much agree with you here.

I think it's retarded and ridiculous. But then again there are a LOT of retarded, ridiculous things that are our protected rights in this country. It's what makes us great. So every time somsone passes a seatbelt law, or a helmet law, or a flag-burning law... it PISSES ME OFF.

[Nowhere]

Oh I don't know about seatbelts & helmets...and actually I have an argument that nobody with who I spoke and with the attitude "it's my bussines" has ever beaten:
"it's not your business, because if you get hurt more because you weren't wearing them, medical funds of us all suffer, and you're much more likely to become dependant on social care (and relatives...) for the rest of your life"
Of course with your crappy, Gurm, (not that ours isn't...just in different ways) medical/social system that argument might be invalid (apart from the relatives thing...)

[cjolley]

...
Of course with your crappy, Gurm, (not that ours isn't...just in different ways) medical/social system that argument might be invalid (apart from the relatives thing...)

Hardly, the Social Security Disability rolls are full of people too cool to use a helmet or seatbelt.

[Gurm]

No, but I'm not a big fan of that either. I do understand it, I just don't like it. Socialism shouldn't be something they sneak up on you. You want to live all socialist, fine - move somewhere socialist. Don't try to slip it into the USA when we're not looking

[az]

Just wait until you, your spouse (forgot her name, sorry) or logan fall really and expensively ill, and see whether you like that socialism better then.

AZ

[Gurm]

Just wait until you, your spouse (forgot her name, sorry) or logan fall really and expensively ill, and see whether you like that socialism better then.

AZ

It's called good health insurance.

And we could debate this forever - because let's face it when someone from a socialized country gets really expensively ill... they come HERE to get better. If Logan needed some life-saving operation, I'd rather have him within spitting distance of Children's Hospital in Boston than anywhere else in the entire world.

[Umfriend]

It's called good health insurance.

And we could debate this forever - because let's face it when someone from a socialized country gets really expensively ill... they come HERE to get better.

Nope. They come over to your place because they can find top-notch health-care there and can pay for it. Not cause it's cheaper at your place.

[Gurm]

Nope. They come over to your place because they can find top-notch health-care there and can pay for it. Not cause it's cheaper at your place.

I didn't say it was cheaper. I said it was BETTER.

[Umfriend]

I didn't say it was cheaper. I said it was BETTER.

Bollocks. Either the point was about people becoming

really expensively ill

or you did not address AZs point.

[Gurm]

I certainly DID address his point.

He said that if Julie or Logan or myself was VERY ill, I'd be happier in a socialized society. I responded that I would not, for two reasons:

1. Cost. We have health insurance. Really GOOD health insurance, since Julie works in Biotech. I'm not worried about the cost of even something like open heart surgery. It's just not an issue.

2. Better care. We get better care here. Perhaps people with crappy HMO's don't - I know that's a problem and wish someone would deal with it. Y'know, like the president or the governor (actually our gov. here in Massachusetts has been threatening to, but nobody likes his solutions). But if Logan gets Leukemia and needs treatment, there is nowhere better to get care than right here in the USA, just down the street. Period. When people in Europe get REALLY sick, if they have the means they come HERE for treatment.

Perhaps average-Joe preventative treatment is better in countries with socialized medicine. I recognize that. But it doesn't affect me personally. I think it should be a priority for our politicians, though... because there is a growing percentage of the USA that does NOT have health care.

[Jon P. Inghram]

because there is a growing percentage of the USA that does NOT have health care.

I think that's mainly because most employees are considered disposable anymore.

[Nowhere]

Correction to what I've said: once this argument didn't work. Simply put: the moron didn't see the problem because he insisted that driving without seatbelts is safer, especially at high speed, basing his knowledge on ONE personally witnessed (or very familiar, don't remember) example (and opinion of somebody: "if he had seatbelt, he wouldn't made it"; I think some idiot police officer ort something...authority for sure) of somebody who survived. Boy, so many psychological traps he fell into

@Gurm, it isn't as obvious as you put it; basically, the people go...somewhere (also Europe) because that's the only place where they can go with the condition. And why you ask? Well, apparently at some point in time your med systems eren't crappy, they could start some treatments, became routine in it, which put price lower (but there's ONE important thing to note: only because usually the doctors performing operation etc. don't take money for it) and lowered risk. The thing could be performed here...but initially it would cost much more...

[Umfriend]

I certainly DID address his point. <SNIP>

At the risk of speaking for AZ, the point was VERY _and_ EXPENSIVELY and given socialism became the OT topic, it prolly was about the money, not the severity.

You happen to have good medicare insurance. That's great, I'm happy for you. Many in the US do not, many of those cause they can't afford it. The point is that in a "socialised" system, far fewer people miss out on medicare. The cost is that those few than could afford insurance miss out only on the very expensive medicare that is available to none (unless they are _very_ well off in which case they go to the US).

Anyway, I agree that it should not be slipped into anywhere.