High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law

[codemage]

Quote:

To codemage: franlky i find it discusting that you think you dersver better health then some one eltes since you have money.

I don't think I deserve better health, nor do I have a lot of money. I come from a lower-middle class background, and worked manual labour through highschool and university to pay for my own education.

My comments have nothing to do with richer people deserving more - it has to do with they can always buy more and the best. In a capitalist system where we encourage competition and the entrepreneurial spirit, there is automatically a class system. If you eliminate the upper class (who can afford all the perks - whether or not they deserve them) - you eliminate the free market.

The responsibility of the state is to provide basic education & health to the lower & middle classes to provide the mobility opportunity - to be able to move into the other "classes".

Interesting trivia: NDP Leader Jack Layton (the champion of public healthcare, as it were) jumped the waiting line and had a hernia operation at a private clinic several in Toronto years ago.

[Andy]

dan, you're right about having to pay osap back eventually, but my point was if the poor people really wanted an education, its possible for them, if i had no money, and wanted an education, i'd do w.e i could just to be able to afford it, if you dont, that means you dont want to be educated

[Dan]

Andy wrote:

dan, you're right about having to pay osap back eventually, but my point was if the poor people really wanted an education, its possible for them, if i had no money, and wanted an education, i'd do w.e i could just to be able to afford it, if you dont, that means you dont want to be educated

That is one of the stupistes things i have ever hured. This year the cost of unviersity for me was more then $10,000 (inudcing books, housing, ect) and what did osap give me? $780 for the hole year. And yes i know it is supsoted to be detrimed by need but i am hardly wealthy. Lucky i was able to get money throw other sorces that are not noramly accesable to most students. Also since the librals have canacled the tution free, tutionion rates are supsorted to go drastickly up. This whould rases some programs at u of w to $12,000 for a year of tution not counting books or housing. If unis get privatitess the price will go up even more.

[Martin]

Taxing the upper classes so that they become middle class would be stupid. First of all, it would encourage companies to pay employees less (so that they have the same resultant income after tax), and thus there would be less tax being paid in total. Then it would cause Canada to bleed talent - if a talented person could make $100,000 a year in Canada or $500,000 a year in some other country, where do you think most of them would choose to go? This would kill foreign investment in Canada, since hiring talent in Canada would be much more difficult than in other places in the world and thusly, Canada's standard of living would decline greatly, and everyone would become poor. It's what caused the Soviet Union to collapse.

I think that the best solution would be to cut tuition by 50%. Even on a part time job complimented by summer jobs and some OSAP, everyone would be able to afford school.

In The Republic, Plato talked about this system in which society was divided into three classes (from Wikipedia):

Quote:

* Productive (Workers) - The laborers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
* Protective (Warriors) - Those who are adventurous, strong, brave, in love with danger; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.
* Governing (Rulers) - Those who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.

One of the things he talks about is that not everyone is allowed to vote - his logic is that not everyone is able to be a doctor (yet everyone should have the opportunity to try to become a doctor, should they choose), so why should uninformed people be able to vote? Now, he backs it by making it so that people in this class system can move from one category to any other category, so they're not trapped by bloodline.

[chrispminis]

wtd wrote:

Except that the Conservative Party is a known entity. It has, in fact, governed Canada in the past, and from what I've heard, the economic policies under that reign were devastating.

True, but it wasn't always Conservative's fault. Ex. 1929? was it? Mackenzie King replaced with Bennett, right when the depression starts. Poor Bennett does a decent job, introducing the "New Deal" which was supposed to offer minimum wage, maximum hours, benefits etc. Unfortunately, Canada's economy had no way of recovering adequately during his term (not necessarily his fault), and like always, when we aren't happy we blame the government (whom sometimes is at fault), and Mackenzie King was re-elected (Luckily for him, his term saw the start of WW2 and the sorti of the Depression)

Also Canadians have a tendency to switch between Liberals and Conservatives, whenever one of the parties isn't competent, (and its worked well enough, so conservatives will probly win election), and i dont think any other party has managed to win besides liberals or conservatives. (although i may be horribly wrong since my history is fairly mediocre). Also if i've overlooked something, point it out, I had very little time to write this, and i didnt read the rest of this thread very thoroughly.

[1of42]

codemage wrote:

Quote:

To codemage: franlky i find it discusting that you think you dersver better health then some one eltes since you have money.

I don't think I deserve better health, nor do I have a lot of money. I come from a lower-middle class background, and worked manual labour through highschool and university to pay for my own education.

My comments have nothing to do with richer people deserving more - it has to do with they can always buy more and the best. In a capitalist system where we encourage competition and the entrepreneurial spirit, there is automatically a class system. If you eliminate the upper class (who can afford all the perks - whether or not they deserve them) - you eliminate the free market.

The responsibility of the state is to provide basic education & health to the lower & middle classes to provide the mobility opportunity - to be able to move into the other "classes".

Interesting trivia: NDP Leader Jack Layton (the champion of public healthcare, as it were) jumped the waiting line and had a hernia operation at a private clinic several in Toronto years ago.

Well thought out post. +applause

[chrispminis]

To not really anyone in particular: Its true, capitalism with oppurtunity has a nice side effect of producing competition and innovation.

And also, to those that are mad that the PM spends tax money on stuff like private jets, and Jack Layton and Paul Martin using private healthcare. I see why you're mad, nobody likes a hypocrite, but frankly I'd rather they did that. If PM's didnt spend money on like jets and limos and stuff, how bad would we look in front of other countries? Canada would have a horrible image if our PM met up with a foreign dignitary after getting lost in a rented car, because he wanted to avoid spending tax dollars on a limo and chauffeur. (a bit extreme, but you get the point lol) Of course theres always a line the spending should never cross, but still 5 star hotels and suites and stuff on tax dollars isn't so bad considering they have to represent our country.

[Justin_]

I'm with Hacker Dan. I realize that many individuals have been poisoned by this concept of "Capitalism" but I think it is hogwash. Consider that individuals who are 3 years old and live in a poor family are equal to individuals who are 3 years old and live in a rich family. Say the poor family one is smarter, more well natured, more physically fit, etc. . . Regardless of all these facts he is still the underdog. The 3 year old born in a rich family will receive the better education, better health care, better opportunity, and better sport teams. I know many people would like to believe that capitalism is about the best earn the most, but it's not the case. Capitalism is: "Money is a monarchy."

If a thousand poor people were better than 1000 rich less talented ones, 1 of those thousand would make it to freedom (richdom), and actually model the altruistic sense of what capitalism is. Indeed the motto of capitalism is a blindfold, forced over the population's eyes, to keep the rich people rich and the poor people thinking they will one day get rich.

Privatize health care? Where are you're hearts people. If a man or women is hurt, they deserve the highest quality care our world can offer them. NO MATTER HOW RICH THEY ARE.

This SHOULD be in the international constitution that every nation must abide by, if there was such a thing as an international constitution. But of course, people are people. Greedy, self-richeous bastards. Well, enjoy it. . . Greed won't keep you alive for long. I swear it.

[chrispminis]

Oh it would be nice if everyone could get the best healthcare no matter how rich they are but unfortunately... The equipment needed for some treatments is incredibly expensive, we can't afford many. Then a large reason some people choose to use private healthcare isn't just because perhaps its higher quality, private doctors arent necessarily more skilled than public doctrs, its because theres such a large line-up. Its the waiting time. Sometimes people in need of treatment dont get it soon enough because there are others who need it just as bad or even worse and must be treated first.

Also capitalism is very, very unequal, the reason the UN doesnt rank USA very high in the best places to live, whereas socialist countries such as Norway get top marks. But, like I said earlier, it has a good side effect. Every no and then someone in the lower class gets out and becomes very succesful, through whatever way. And this gives hope to the lower classes as well. It motivates and inspires some to innovate and achieve excellence. Besides another thing (however cruel and unfair ), if everyone was rich, (not only would nobody be rich) but who would want to do some of the necessary jobs out there? A society cant live on academic and "fun" jobs. We still need garbage men, janitors, etc. If someone was given the choice between say a doctor, a police man, or garbage man, how many would choose garbage man?

But yeah, IMO neither capitalism, nor communism (although i am chinese, so im not the typical commy hater) works on its own. We need to have a balance.

[Martin]

chrispminis, the question that that begs is - why should some people be allowed to cut the line?

[chrispminis]

Because they're richer? lol... maybe if the money from private healthcare went into reducing waiting lines of public healthcare...? Hmm that wouldn't work really huh?

[Justin_]

If you are a consumer in the first class countries you agree to owning slaves.
Third world countries who make many of our products are our slaves. They live in conditions that we wouldn't dream of, and are paid with the money we can afford to pay while still keeping such things like: cable tv, internet, computer, house, etc... There's no question its slavery, its just disguised.

So if you live out your lives, then you're a slave owner. Simple as that basically. Yes all of you, since the slaves don't own computers and internet to be able to read this.

One day machines will replace slavery. . .

EDIT: Chris there is a simple way to reduce waiting lines and afford equal health care that is top of the line for everyone. Put it on the rich people's tab. It's called Communism, and no Russia was never trully communist. Their system of government was a lot like our capitalist one, a lie. Communism is the ideal, Russia was the masquerader, and because of Russia (or should i say the soviet union) People think Communism is a bad thing that doesn't work. I think it works, we just need to actually try it. Not pretend to, like Russia did.

[Dan]

Martin wrote:

I think that the best solution would be to cut tuition by 50%. Even on a part time job complimented by summer jobs and some OSAP, everyone would be able to afford school.

Well as i side b4 i think tutuion should be free and we should just have to pay cots of living and books. Tho since i also blive in freedom of inromfation thos books should be ablivable online for free =p

As for the tax thing, that was an agngerstagted method for geting fudining for shuch cuts. Althought i whould not mind a massive tax on higger class witch is what i ment i realize it whould not be the most effesent method to moving to a more soicalis sociuty. For right now i think the tax system needs to be adgjusted to tax the higher class the most, right now it is taxing the midle class the most.

As for Plato, what i rember from highschool is that he did have the desgisn for one of the best socitys but it had 2 falws. It was ment for a small scale population not a controy or even a proivce like canada has and 2. that it was depednent on savloiry. So if we make so nice AI robots in the futtuer and whont to slipt up the population more it whould work out. Unless the robots reabal and kill us all and put us in to liite boxs like the matrix....that could be fun and more socialists tho...

[Martin]

I think the best solution for tax would be a single income tax percentage for everyone, say 40%, with people below a certain income level completely exempt from it. The problem with focusing tax on the upper class is that the upper class is the driving force behind society - if you tax them too much, they'll leave and when they leave, the money also leaves.

I think one problem that making tuition free would be that university would be thought of as a continuation of highschool. Personally, I like paying for university - it's my single biggest motivator. Also, causing people to pay for it would ease the tax costs of the schools. I think that 50% of current tuition fees would be completely reasonable and obtainable by nearly everyone through normal means.

[chrispminis]

Well said Martin, I completely agree with you, although many universities would find it hard to reduce their tuition fees by 50%

Also on the subject of communism, its a good idea in terms of equality. But the problem is if everyone is equal, where is the work ethic? People won't be motivated to work, since they would have equal living conditions. Their work would be sub-par unless they were penalized. In which it wouldn't really be communism in the equalest sense because there would still then be significant inequality. Communism appeals to those of the lower classes, nobody rich wants to lose all their money (whether hard-earned or not). If everyone is equal, what can the people aspire towards? Well, I'm sure you can think of some others, but money is often the goal for people. Also, those under a communist government who believe they can do better than others may arise. But seeing that they really have no room for success (as in money, fame, and status). No room to prove themselves. So then some of the most qualified people will emigrate and go to say a capitalist country where their skills will be recognized and rewarded far beyond that of a communist government. Unless you have a strangle hold communist government, brain drain will be difficult to curb. My parents both grew up under the communist regime of Mao, and thats basically where i draw my opinions. Communism means well (well sometimes), but IMO it just cant work. At least not without sacrificing personal freedoms.

EDIT: forgot to add, IMO the Soviet Union wasn't a masquerader, they were communist, the reason it didn't work out for them is that 1. They were too economically poor and unstable to keep up living standards (so poor people were still content) and 2. Cold War american propoganda didn't just denounce the Soviet Union as bad, but also the idea of communism (giving it an evil label)