The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

In last night's debate, Romney made the remark he would stop funding PBS (Bigbird). I have heard that the government supports about 8% of the funding for PBS and also supports agencies like Planned Parenthood, which offers abortions among other things. PBS, keep in mind makes millions on merchandising sales of which the taxpayer gets nothing.

Should the taxpayers be on the hook for theses type of things? My position is that government is already involved with way too much, including my personal decisions. I don't feel like my taxes should pay for a TV network, contraception or abortions...I could go on and on.

All I want from my government is keeping me safe by providing a strong military, running the jails (that is going private btw) and investing R&D in the sciences. If the education system went private, it would be cheaper and better. You can get rid of the post office too.     

^^^ This guy gets it

Except that Article I, section 8, clause 7 calls for the establishment of post offices.

Do not confuse "going private" with not taxpayer funded. 

Taxpayers still pay for the jails.  The only difference is it typically costs more.  The workers are paid less.  And someone who made a huge contribution to the politican in charge winds up pocketing profits at the taxpayers expense. 

I liked what Romney said about cutting programs that didn't pass the test of: Is it worth borrowing money from China to fund?

There are programs that I personally like, like NASA and PBS, that make it a tough call.  Others, like farm subsidies, that I think need to be eliminated.

I think that contraceptives should ABSOLUTELY be covered by national health care, as it saves the nation money.  ...abortion, while we're at it, but it'll never happen.  Basically, anything that does better when it is a shared resource should be run by the government.  ...things we all need -- defense, health care, education, transit, post, courts/jail, and advancements to technology that helps push industries (telecommunications, energy)

i think the whole "borrow money from china" thing is also misleading.. when the united states increases the debt, at no point do we borrow money from china.

If you don't understand how the world of modern financing works, i'm sure it makes for a nifty sound byte though.

I always thought that it's strange that people feel like abortions shouldn't be paid for with tax dollars because it's a policy that they oppose.

I opposed the war in Iraq and private contractors doing the work of our military, yet those seem to have been funded without any issue.

I wonder if attacking Big Bird is going to fail as collassally as Dan Quail's attack on Murphy Brown or Bush, Sr.'s attack on the Simpsons.

As a matter of a philosophical debate, I think that bringing up PBS is a good one.  Should government be in the business of running a TV station?  That's a total legitimate concern about the size of business.

What I hate is that it seems to come with complete blinders to the big issues of spending.  Military, Social Security, Medicare -- that's where your money goes.

Yes, excellent point. I was not very clear. Just meant that the government was not running the jails, but the taxpayer is ALWAYS on the hook.

Here in AZ. our Governor is a huge supporter of private prisons. They claim it is cheaper, but it isn't and it is not nearly as safe. Private companies cut costs by hiring cheaper labor, less security, less training and .....

Last year a couple of people escaped a private prison and killed some innocent people. We were more than upset. Not only that, but the state has failed to follow up on audits and inspections. The prison issue is really a hot topic for me. Would you believe the state of AZ. even imports prisoners from other states to keep the bed count up? They even passed a law that requires ALL incarcerated to serve a minimum of 85% of time sentenced. Now that is effective rehab!

It will be a debate that will never die, and if you are pro life or pro choice makes no difference. IMO, it is still an area that the government has no business being in.

Do you think that the government should foot the bill for abortions ?

I would like the government to oversee the entire healthcare industry, which would include abortions, contraception, etc.  The only thing that I think shouldn't be covered is stuff like cosmetic surgery for non-deformities.

That is exactly what the European Socialist Countries believe. How is that working? Ever talk to anyone who has lived in Canada? It is a nightmare and dying before you can see a doctor is not uncommon. They say as long as the illness is minor, it is OK, but anything serious and you are in trouble.

Point #2. Name 1 thing besides the military that the government is more efficient than private industry. There may be one, but I can't think of it.

A perfect example is the post office. The PO was a government monopoly for years and still lost money. Then when UPS and Fed EX showed up, who are both profitable BTW, it was ballgame over.

Dave, have you ever worked for or with the government? Are you aware of the culture and entitlement attitudes? Just curious...Oh, Brian Miller says hello.

So other than a health issue or life risking problem in pregnancy, you consider normal pregnancy a health problem ?

Don't take this the wrong way. But do you suffer from some sort of memento style amnesia?

That is what almost every industrial county in the world has other than us.  I have talked to people in Canada, and they say they are shocked how distorted the American media makes it out to be.  

Speaking of the military.  They have single payer "socialistic" system.


Horrible example.  The US post office delivers mail to every address, bills, packages, magazines etc for a realitively low price.  UPS and Fedex only take a slice of the most profitable items and leaves the post office to pick up the rest.  If UPS and Fedex is really more efficient why don't I get my newspapers and bills via Fedex?  

I could present a strong debate on this subject, but it would never make a difference. We have differing philosophies concerning government and their role in our lives. I am for less and seemingly you are for more. You must be very happy the way things have gone the last 3 1/2 yrs. and when Obama Care kicks in the govt. will grow even more.

PS. The newspapers hire delivery drivers (private contractors actually) to deliver your paper and the time will come that you will pay extra to get a paper bill in the mail. Congress sure did leave the post office out to dry this last session didn't they? Congress has been dicking around with talk of cutting a delivery day from the PO, but meanwhile the PO just missed ANOTHER 5.6 BILLION dollar payment.   

I have been saying for 10 yrs. to make stamps a dollar and be done with it. The Internet with electronic billing and pay has killed the PO and they should have seen that coming 15 yrs. ago. 

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/01/14172202-postal-service-misses-another-5-billion-payment-blames-congress

That was not very nice and totally uncalled for.

I wasn't trying to put you down.. you made a comment and then made the exact opposite point 5 posts later .. i was just wondering if in fact there was a legitimate medical condition involved .. like amnesia .. or multiple personalities that would account for that.

Without proper healthcare, pregnancy (a temporary condition, mind you) can lead to very serious problems, up to and including death for both the mother and the child.

It seems ridiculous to promote a system in which pregnancy is not covered until you have complications, at which point the coverage is much more expensive and dangerous.  Why not cover pregnancy from the beginning, prevent many of these expensive complications, and ensure better health for mother and child from the start?

But then again, these are many of the same people who argue for the cost savings of denying free birth control to mothers who would be living on gov't benefits if they were to have a child.

No problem. What point was that? BTW, did I mention that I drink... A LOT?? LOL Being a Dolphin fan, it just comes natural. JK

You challenged anyone to mention a program (besides the military) that the gov't is more efficient at than private industry, exactly two posts after mentioning that private prisons in your home state are more expensive and more dangerous than gov't-run prisons.

Oh, I see the confusion. The reason is because the state has failed to maintain the same standards for private companies as they do government prisons. It is up for debate. Many do believe that privately run prisons are cheaper and more efficient and if held to the same standards, they could be. Our Governor is one.

This could be a problem only evident in my state. Yes, I will admit I would rather have the government run prisons. At least then they would stop importing felons from other states for profit.   

My state, Massachusetts, has taxpayer funded health care for those who can't afford it called Mass Health.  I think all states should adopt this.

Yes.  It's a health issue, absolutely.  It requires medical treatment and care.

And abortion should be included in that care ? That's just silly. If people are not trying to have a child when having sex, then that sex is nothing but a recreational activity. If the government is going to pay for results that kind of recreational activity. Then maybe they can pay peoples mortgages and light bills when they spend all their money on lottery tickets, going to the casino, or smoking crack. All of which are recreational activities. Hell, at least with the casino or lottery you have a chance of winning. When irresponsible people have recreational sex, there is no "chance of winning". The taxpayer should not be on the hook for an abortion for some whore to fuck around and to get her rocks off. Do you people ever believe in people being responsible for their own actions and choices in life ?

Health care is health care.

Abortions won't be covered, but in my ideal world where I'm king, they would be.  It's a moot point fantasy, however.

Personally, I am pro life so naturally I am against abortion regardless who pays. However, if the government foots the tab, it should come with the stipulation that "momma be fixed" so it is a one time deal.

Personally, I am Pro-I-Don't-Give-A-Shit either way about abortion. It's been legal since I was born, so that's that. If people want one, go get one, it ain't my business as long as my tax dollars don't pay for it. Abortion in cases of a voluntary abortion is not health care, it's health convenience. And even though it's hypothetical and they won't be covered, the thought of what you said made me say, "WTF?". For me it's more the thought process of how people come up with such silly things. When and if too many people start thinking like this this whole country is doomed, if it isn't already. My point is, ADULTS should be responsible for their own actions and choices in life. 


Actually, in that situation, if the father of the child is known he should be fixed also. Kill 2 birds with one scalpel....

So basically, if you are injured while, say, playing basketball, government healthcare services should not apply?  How about if you get in a car accident on the way to a baseball game?  Certainly government-funded lifeguards would be completely pointless, right?

Is it only certain types of recreational activities that should be punished?

And while we're on the subject of "recreational activity," do you believe that men who are receiving health coverage to pay for Viagra should be required to produce a pregnancy or report to a fertility doctor to continue receiving their prescription?  I mean, if you aren't producing children, it's strictly recreational, right?

So given that, you should also agree that they should also pay for someones bills when they spend their money on recreational activities, casinos, drugs, lotteries, etc. The basic premise is that the government is financially covering for someones lack of responsibility during risky recreational activities. And no, I think that you shouldn't be participating in risky physical activities if you cannot pay for the results of your actions. As far as Viagra goes, if private insurance wants to cover it, it's their decision. Sex shouldn't be a government entitlement and shouldn't be covered by gubment healthcare and taxpayer money. You can twist it however you want to, your agenda is clear. They're not asking for a hand, just a handout.....

Well, first off, let's be clear about what we're talking about: providing medical care to people.

That being said, if you're an illegal immigrant crackhead who injured himself while drunk driving and you need emergency medical care, the Supreme Court has determined that the government will provide emergency care for free.

So until you are willing to endorse a medical system in which every request for care is accompanied by an explanation of what you were doing to need such care (up to and including "Did you really need to be driving to that concert?"), I'm going to label attempts to exclude female reproductive healthcare as purely political.

No, we were talking about government funded abortion. Baring certain circumstances, abortion is neither health care or necessary. Most abortions are elective procedures and not medically necessary.

I'm for government funded 100% free abortions to whomever wants them.  Statistics show that the less wanted a child is, the more likely they are to be a non productive member of society.

Abortion is a medical procedure and has nothing to do with casino debts or mortgage payments.

If you want to try to argue that abortion is elective (and therefore unnecessary) but then argue that Viagra prescriptions ARE necessary, feel free.

That is what makes you and your type part of the problem instead of part of the solution. 

They would both be the result of risky recreational behavior. They would both be unnecessary. And if the government hypothetically would cover the participant of one risky behavior, why not the other ?

You are twisting the subject again like usual. Private companies can cover whatever they want, it's their money. The government shouldn't cover either.

"You and your type"... Thanks for that vernacular stroll down memory lane. I had almost forgotten how ugly prejudice is in its naked form.

What does "you and your type" mean to you ? Prejudice against whom ? Seems to me you are making plenty of assumptions....

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:

Should government-provided health care be contingent on whether you need it because of recreational activities you were involved in?

An elective operations is not a need. Treatment due to injury is a need. All government paid healthcare should be based on need. So that's that.

If the government hypothetically would cover the participant of one risky behavior, why not the other ?

It sounds like you're saying that whether the activity is "recreational" or not doesn't matter.  It also sounds like you're saying that elective operations should not be covered.

Is that your position?

Are you a lawyer or something ? I have stated my position and you keep asking the same questions over and over. You just keep posting, spinning, and repeating the same questions until people get tired or or distracted and then you pick one word of their post and act like you are smarter than everyone on this site.

Elective procedures in general and that are a result of recreational activities should not be covered by the government. Twist and spin away....

Because you're not understanding how all procedures are elective. "Need" is a relative term. Its easy to sit back and say that abortion is a result of irresponsible behavior. Or that its only an elective procedure. It is an elective to not want to carry the spawn of a rape or incest to term. Its narrow minded to think that the majority decide to abort in month 8 because they don't want to have a kid anymore.

More word spinning, ha ha, classic. We are talking about medical care that is required for the health and well being of an individual, in other words, a "needed" procedure. On the other hand, and elective procedure is generally not required for the health and well being of the individual, it is a wanted procedure. Needs and wants are different things. I am specifically referring to the majority of abortions where the mother just decides that she doesn't want what her irresponsible behavior has caused. The issues of rape, incest, and pregnancy complications has not really been addressed here.

Nor, is it addressed at all by those who wish to abolish abortion. The same people who ignore the instances where it is "needed". It is a legal medical procedure. When its not done in a medical environment, that makes it a health issue. In a perfect world, abortion would never be "needed". Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. I can respect the stance of "not wanting your tax dollars to go for what you don't want". But, I don't get that option either(ie: the Iraq war). I would much rather women taken care of, as opposed to them resorting to the proverbial coat hanger.

I don't wish to abolish abortion whatsoever. However, we are creating a system that lets people get by doing the bare minimum. Not having to face reality and responsibility for their own actions and choices. Everyone Most on this site would have the government pay for birth control and abortions if they could. So now sex is a government entitlement with no responsibility from the participants ? Sorry, I will never agree with that, I'll leave that crazy shit talk to the loon birds.

I'm glad you wouldn't want to abolish abortion. At the sane time, I don't agree with government "entitlements" being a lifestyle. I don't look at programs as mandates.  I can't look down on a single mom who gets a refund more than the taxes she paid, while GE pays no taxes. Then turn around and say to the single mom who can't get a job at GE, and say she's the problem. The main problem isn't the people dependent on government. Its fewer people paying into a system that's already out of balance.

Do you support Obama ?

Against Romney? Yes

And all unplanned pregnancies are due to irresponsible behavior as condoms, the pill, and even tubal ligation have never failed.

The sad truth is that abortions save money.  If you're against abortions because you think that they are morally wrong, I will not debate you on that -- it is certainly a legitimate position and I get that.

But if you are arguing against them because it's not fair that you should have to pay for them, the argument holds no weight.  Assuming we are going to pay for people's health care, which would include pregnancies, deliveries, etc., and especially considering that we do pay for childrens' schooling and many other things (not to mention that statistically speaking, those that would've been aborted will likely be a greater financial drain on the "safety net"), paying for an abortion saves money to the system and ultimately to you.

Yes, that is where I am at. I was not only "a mistake", but grew up a Christian and even attended a Christian college. While I do not actively practice, I still believe abortion is morally wrong.

I do however can see how people believe it is their right to make a choice. IMO, this is one of many topics that will be debated forever. No possible solution will please everyone.

Members of the same club.

If medical technology advanced to the point where it was feasible to remove an embryo and incubate it (followed by an adoption), would the anti-abortion crowd support gov't funding for that?

FWIW, article on Big Bird...= big business. I wondered if the kids show had been affected by all of the new technology. When I was a kid, Looney Tunes was all there was. Today, there are tons of choices for toddlers. Job still pays pretty good. lol


http://money.msn.com/politics/post.aspx?post=4235ea50-f856-4458-9e2e-b93f13c26281

I believe that there are certain things that even though it means spending more at the national level, means saving more at the individual level.

So, it might not be the government's RESPONSIBILITY to provide health care to its citizens, but I think it's more financially viable than having everyone do it on their own.  And I think you have to think like that on a case by case basis.  I'd love to see us move towards socialized medicine, but the "S" word is so dirty in politics these days.