|In Defense Of The Right
Author: moongazer7 PM
A rant and also a review. A comeback to a person who tried to defend the healthcare bill and how it will not work. I also speak about capitalism and how it works along in presenting the differences between a democrat and a republican.Rated: Fiction K - English - Drama - Words: 1,909 - Published: 04-05-10 - Status: Complete - id: 2793372
|A+ A- Full 3/4 1/2 Expand Tighten|
In Defense Of The Right
Author's note: so, I wrote this as a review to someone on this other writing website, he was trying to defend the health bill while saying some interestingthings. This is my response. This is however, things I've been saying to too many for a good while now.
Most republicans are rich and have some money. I try not to generalize but I think I must here as for the most part it is true because of there ideology. Republicans or rather the conservatives as a whole believe that they must live for themselves and no matter what it takes make a good life for themselves as no one is there for them. conservatives or strictly speaking conservatives that believe in there original party ideals are generally capitalists, businessmen, or hard workers that believe in competition, and reaching the top one day. They don't believe they have time to sit around to wait for things to fall in their laps or people who might just feel sorry for them and give them something. Most real conservatives who are disabled if in a capitalistic society if not to major will work. As you mentioned the preexisting conditions. Most republican think that it is and should be a level playing field and if it was a truly capitalistic society it would be. Except those who are very disabled. Then, that is the parent's or family's responsibility, not the governments. I think all the government should be only keeping laws.
What most people in today's society don't understand is education is a privillege and government support and SSI was not always available. People, don't realize some of this stuff because society now takes them as a fact of life and it has now become our culture.
I think that Education is a good thing, don't mistake that but i also think that it is not the most important. It's always nice to be a gentleman or a lady but I think If the family were too poor to send there kids off to school I don't see anything wrong with working at a young age. If there were folks who were willing to privately, not through the government, but by private endeavors pay for the kid as a charitable act that would be fine. People, must go out there and find these opportunities. Naturally there should be no public schools. However, if there was no one to sponser them work might be the best opption. The oil and mining industries they can start out in helping in very light capacities and, I believe there should be certain laws against some forms of labor as in heavy duty but having them help in lighter matters I don't see a problem with. Maybe the simple jobs. After teaching them in many various ways in these professions they can do it in their teens as they can deal with slightly harder tasks. Meanwhile if they can find a little bit of money and save perhaps they could get the children in school at some point and learn the basics in life or buy the books. then, eventually, I can see the children being good at life and there profession and make big bucks on there careers. They could probably catch up later hopefully when they get enough money. If they don't it all repeats before one rises to the top of his profession and beats the other men. The scholars are brought up by these rich business folks to manage to get on top. then, scholars do what they do in society and contributes. Some rich scholars may wish by choice to extenda hand after they are stable, as oneself always goes first and help some of the porer out, maybe just enough to get them an education. Thus the cycle continues. Maybe some may give more maybe some may not. However, true capitalistic society will not force them and will allow this to be a choice. free men do not care about power and the lust for it. they wouldn't mind others beting them. "If the other man is betterr" the theory goes "then why not." Yes, it is very possible and very likely that the one that was overridden will go and recommit himself to be better and rise back up to the top, but some won't be able to. This is the nature of competition. That's pure idealistic capitalism. Now back to education for a moment. I am in school and I find it amazing and privilleged, not because I am disabled but rather because I find it lucky that I am able to have an education. As I have said I don't see it as a right. I am proud to be a scholar and at some point I do wish to launch myself in to the capitalistic system, and charitably give generously to a student/child I think worthy of my energy. However, I refuse to be forced to give by the government. However, back to the first original point. that is why republicans are so rich. they don't back rich people, they are, and of course they back other rich folks.
My family isn't incredibly rich but rich enough. we are probably at the very fringe of upper middle class however we struggle a bit. My family is never eligible for government aid or grants or anything like that. That just tells you, how lucky I am, I suppose. However, my parents have worked hard for there cash. I only bring that up to make the point not all rich people are republicans, but most are as my family according to their ideology are democrats who are very close to socialists.
I've noticed something else, most democrats are poorer or if they are rich they usually have taken someone's money by force. I don't deny that some democrats deserve every paenny they earned but not too many.
they are too busy feeling sorry for themselves or others, and they force these rich folks to give up there hard earned cash for fairness sake, as they couldn't possibly work for some reason or couldn't get the right education.
Wait... I thought there was a saying that went like
"life isn't fair."
Well, I know democrats are eager to preach it especially at there children and then they turn around and complain about unequal and unfair, when they have to work harder. Yes, even if they don't like it.
Wait... I thought there was another one they liked to preach
it is something to the effect of
You don't like it? deal with it.
Why don't they. They could work through it and learn some traid and perhaps get money or somehow find resources to do so.
So, not everyone is smart?? Tough, because no one was born to know everything and they found a way.,
No, not money, capitalism is a system of free voluntary trade, which creats money which fuels our nation. as America is the closest country to capitalism yet it has never been a capitalistic country. A capitalistic country has never existed, America has gotten close, and most of it's ideals are based on capitalism. In modern day some are and some are not, but essentially today society is much less capitalistic then in earlier times. We are considered to be a mixed economy.
while America has been a free nation all it's existence and never a ruled nation, and we head that direction, I think America has everything to worry about.
The UK, Austrailia and these other nations have never really been free. they naturally don't see the reason to be afraid. so, they wonder what we are panicking over.
that's precisely the problem, that healthcare is not free. The democrats are trying to play on that. they have it all set up.
Okay, pretend you are a healthcare insurance provider. Why did people by healthcare when they were good for when they were sick? because, they knew that if they got sick then bought healthcare that the providers wouldn't sell it to them. This had the well, while paying for the safeguard for themselves while knowing when they are sick there costs will be lower and there treatment insured. However, when they pay for the safeguard months when they are not sick, they are still paying the company for there services. While some companies may take more money for themselves they are stilll using some of this other money for other patience. Yes, kind of like a bank. Now, the government says, "Oh, you don't have to worry about buying it till you are sick and the insurance must still pay for you as they can't refuse you."
Now, many are going to think, how lucky. I get to save some money, I no longer need the safeguard. so, now the ones who is paying in minimally is the sick who is withdrawing more then they are depositing. You must remember most healthy people who want to save money has probably withdrawn as they know they probably won't be sick and all so they don't really need it. Now, the insurances is running out of money and they would probably protest to the government how unfair the previous law was or demand for a bill that healthy people must pay in. The democrats are going to cry "greedy money sucking insurance" to the ones who were demanding that some healthy people buy insurance too. and, to the other crowd who is asking for repeal would be "selfish bastards who don't give a damn to life." so, the single payer goes in to effect and it's like the rest of the other countries. Long lines, and people especially older folks dying.
As someone once said you see a boat load of many nationalities immigrating to other places for a better life, but You have never heard a boatload of Americaans going to find a better resolve. Maybe, there will never again be boatloads of people coming to America to get medical help pretty soon in the future. as our healthcare will be just like there's.
No, this might not happen. I and many other worried conservatives think it will be a big chance that it will go that way. and a small chance it will go well. but, why have the chance at all. Life isn't fair and sickness should not give a person a right to healthcare.
last bit is this.
As I have expressed I think that a preexisting condition should be paid by for the parents or family. After all, the kid or later person does not and will never logically belong to the government. they are the parents child and the family's relative. You can't substitute government in to the parents place or the family in that sentence, could you? Therefore, if the person was severely handicap and really couldn't support himself it would be the family's job to pay for the things or the parents. However, if they are pretty much like me a very mild case like I as I am only blind, I think it's the individual's responsibility.