[Rhodes22-list] Special Tribute to Brad Haslett {about America, you can call what you want}

[David Bradley]

Herb, I actually do agree with the notion of minimal care clinics if
there is to be a social support net funded though the overall payments
system.  Would perhaps clear out the ERs and protect private health
care providers.  We might debate what's covered by that, but no need
to do that here.  Is this part of anyone's proposals on a solution?
(Besides yours and mine.)

On the 1/3 guess...  I realize I didn't state my point cleary.  I was
reacting to the article, not your proposal.  One of the points in the
article (simplified) was that when 51% of the population lives on
government assistance they can then just vote for more.  What I'm
suggesting as a hypothesis is that the 1/3 who didn't vote in this
fairly historic election are probably highly overlapped with the
20-30% (?) who receive significant forms of welfare-like government
support.  I'm not including seniors on Medicaire and/or living on
Social Security in that hypothesis.

I truly can't imagine withholding the right to vote in a Federal
election from a Federal employee.  I understand your logic, but I
would draw the line in a different place.  Remember the old "theory x
/ theory y" model of management?  Or the "type 1 / type 2 risk" part
of statistics?

Dave



On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> You probably wouldn't like my idea, but it fits 100% with my
> "responsibility/choice/privilege" theme.
>
> Determine the "minimum basic care" required, and please note, it should
> be MINIMUM, and it should be BASIC. For instance, kids don't NEED braces.
> Make it known that the RIGHT to have children includes the
> RESPONSIBILITY of caring for them properly, including their basic needs.
> Penalize the parents who make the choice to have children, but pursue
> their desires instead of providing the basic needs of their children.
>
> I think you're guess about the 1/3 is wrong, but I also think you may
> have under-interpreted my proposal. I didn't say government ASSISTANCE,
> I said receives over 50% of their income directly from the government."
>
> That includes people who work for the government. I know that sounds
> unfair, but if I work for the government, and one candidate is proposing
> to cut way back on taking from taxpayers to increase government, and
> another is voting to increase that, guess who I'm more likely to vote for?
>
> I suspect the number of people that receive over 1/2 their income
> directly from the government is much larger than 1/3 of the population.
>
> David Bradley wrote:
>> Can't say I disagree with any or much of this.  Does anyone have an
>> example or idea of how to provide a support network for citizens who
>> need and deserve support while excluding those who could and should
>> support themselves?  Children, for example, I feel deserve to receive
>> decent medical care care regardless whether their parent(s) is(are)
>> able to provide for it.
>>
>> Here's a guess.  If I remember the numbers, about 2/3 of eligible
>> voters actually voted in the past election, the highest percentage
>> since JFK's election.  What are the chances that the 1/3 who didn't
>> vote are pretty much the 1/3 who live on government support?  The
>> problem of who gets to vote may be taking care of itself...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now there's a guy that very well articulates my thoughts.
>>>
>>> My personal belief is that anyone that receives over 50% of their income
>>> directly from the government should be disenfranchised. They have a
>>> conflict of interest.
>>>
>>> Robert A Heinlein proposed a similar restriction in his
>>> political/science fiction novel Starship Troopers. In his "would be"
>>> world, only those that had served in the military in one fashion or
>>> another were eligible to vote. You had to sever in SOME fashion, which
>>> was the one indicator that you were willing to sacrifice your personal
>>> needs/desires/aspirations to benefit society as a whole. Ironically, in
>>> his book, those IN the military were not eligible to vote. Only after
>>> you finished your tour(s) of duty were you enfranchised.
>>>
>>> I'm not quite that extreme, but I say if you're making your living
>>> directly from the government, you have an predisposition to expand their
>>> ability to "give", and thus have a conflict of interest.
>>>
>>> Since I've mentioned, I'll also say that Heinlein has a quote that would
>>> be VERY applicable here:
>>>
>>> =====
>>> Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
>>> fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria.
>>> The human race divides politically into those who want people to be
>>> controlled and those who have no such desire.
>>> =====
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tootle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brad,
>>>>
>>>> This guy must have been reading your posts over the years or could you
>>>> believe somebody else echos your thoughts and words?
>>>>
>>>> Attachment of November 14, 2008
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p20504188/Our%2BCulture.jpg Our+Culture.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Ed K
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Herb Parsons
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Herb Parsons
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>



-- 
David Bradley
+1.206.234.3977
dwbrad at gmail.com