bmdrocks21

They are most certainly not making absurd profits. Health insurance companies get a 3.3% profit margin, which is pitiful. Banking and real estate companies make over 20% profit margins. Tell me, how is that modest 3.3% unreasonable?

We do not get rid of the middleman by getting rid of private insurance. We replace the insurance companies with government bureaucracy.

I can work hard and earn healthcare. And if I want a private insurance company that I surmise can do better than the government, I would take it. I keep hearing that this will raise worker productivity, but by how much? And why couldn't raising competition and lowering regulation help drive down costs instead to prevent said bankruptcies?

I don't believe that it will be better coverage unless it costs tons more, unless you price fix. Then, that is how you get absurd wait times, shortages of products, and stifled innovation.

Obama is a scum bag and all, but those few hundred million are nothing compared to the billions we give Israel annually. We should give neither money and let what will happen, happen.

Republicans give more to charities, so no, the liberal wingnuts are not the altruistic ones. They clearly do not give willingly.

Republicans also tip better. They help those poor restaurant workers out.

Well shucks, there goes your narrative. You bleeding-heart liberals sure want to give money to people you think need it, you just don't want it to be your money.

Tell me, what does this blabbering about targets mean. Please, actually give an articulate, and well-thought-out reason how my perspective is wrong. If you are capable that is....

What gives you the right to take what I earned and give it to someone that didn't earn it? That was my question that you ignored. You obviously can't justify it, which is why you don't answer.

Right: You have to do something for someone else to survive.(Altruism)

Left: I want everything I could ever want given to me because I breathe. You all have to give it to me or go to jail. You can't own more than me or it is bad! (envious thieves)

I've answered your questions multiple times. Answer mine for once.

Right: altruistic

Left: envious thieves

You take something that I EARNED.

You do this without my consent.

Then you spend it on things that in no way benefit me. What a great way to structure a country.

If you are so concerned about people not having something, how about you pay for it? What gives your self-righteous, entitled self the right to steal my property that I earned and give it to someone who didn't earn it?

I will not apologize for being vehemently against murdering a child. Why you don't support the right to life is beyond me. I answered your questions. I even once rephrased my answer three times in the same message and you still couldn't let it sink in. 

What's in it for everyone (your leftist policies)?

Starvation and homelessness, mostly.

You got whooped in the abortion forum, so now you've moved into this one, eh?

If you steal my money, then you sure as hell better benefit me somehow.

The plaintive cry of the liberal:

I feel bad for that person. Everybody who works, give them money or you go to jail! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

"Plus Israel has survived this.It is almost like it has a force that is greater then all nations of the earth that is protecting it"

How about America? We send them billions of dollars and have historically fought their wars for them. That is why they are still around.

The reason that private insurance is so expensive is because government programs underpay doctors. Will that problem be solved? If so, how much will it cost?

Every single procedure known to man will be covered? Sounds expensive.

Some of those examples, probably not. Toll roads or a higher gas tax would be a lot more efficient. I should pay for police and fire fighters because police deter crime, which helps me. Fire fighters are there to save me. Education very indirectly can help me, depending on the education level. Most of those are an investment for me. If the kid keeps repeating grades, I shouldn't have to pay for it. In the same sense, I shouldn't have to pay someone who is unhealthy and is putting unnecessary strain on the system. How does someone else having healthcare benefit me? Again, you didn't answer my question: how is it fair that I have to pay exponentially more money because other people make terrible life choices? Will shifting their costs to me deter their bad behavior?

Lol, got your back, my dude

Middle Class: $45,000 - $139,999

Income tax differences in that range:

$38,700-$82,500 25% to 22%

$82,500-$157,500 28% to 24%

He did in 2018.....

This was directed to Paul.

He obviously can read, I'm just calling out Paul's hyper-partisan and nonsensical comments.

Where have I heard this before....? You get to keep your doctor.... Not sure I care for your false promises. 

But, having the government decide what is and is not covered sounds like control to me. Should the family choose what plan best suits their needs or should the government do it? Should I have to pay for people who are unhealthy sloths while I work out, eat healthy, and don't strain the system? Probably not.

Cite your source

So we're all just supposed to defer to your wisdom on the matter?

Please, do tell how he, not the Democrats, have authoritarian leanings. I would think the people vying to control the entire medical insurance market would be the authoritarians. You know, the ones who want to manipulate markets through central planning to have even more control over our lives?

Lol, that about sums it up

If you would care to check, perhaps you would have seen that on my profile, I am very isolationist. I very rarely support wars, so stop lying please. ^_^

I said that I was 100% against Iraq's invasion. That means anti-war, in case you had difficulty understanding that. I said I don't know enough about Afghanistan to have an opinion, which is neither pro or anti-war. So, now that we have your lies of hypocrisy out of the way, please tell me why you are okay with killing defenseless and innocent babies? I look forward to your illogical rationalization and cognitive dissonance that you always spew at everyone on this site.

I support abortion in some cases. For instance, if the mother would die. Aka self-defense.

I support killing someone who is trying to kill you. Also self-defense.

The War in Iraq, definitely didn't support. Don't know a ton about Afghanistan. It is time to bring the troops home, though.

And I'm not lying, it is 100% murder.

I know what the medical procedure is, so I don't have to know what each woman is having done.

I'm being honest. I am the only one who is bringing facts to the table. You can complain and white knight for women all you want with your incoherent arguments. I, on the other hand, will argue to not have humans slaughtered.

Yes, because restricting the murder of a person is being misogynist. Of course.....

What are even you talking about? I am discussing a specific medical procedure. That is how I "know" the procedure they are undergoing. You can ban or regulate a medical procedure without any confidential knowledge that I wouldn't have a "right" to. I am not invading every woman's body. I am restricting a killing of an innocent and defenseless human by any woman who would want to plus their doctor.

You don't know what abortion is, do you?

It is all coming together....

I answered your post. Did you read what I said?

Women abort a fetus. That is how it works. 

Well, to have an abortion, you kinda got to have some other living being for the woman to abort. That's where I got 'fetus' from

Meh, slavery is pretty bad even economically speaking. It hinders innovation. Just look at the Confederacy before the Civil War. I believe they had one factory at the beginning. Slavery left them in the past. There really aren't any good aspects of it morally or economically speaking. You're taking a difference of opinion to mean that nothing can be right. Apply that to politics. We disagree, but one of us is correct about any given issue. In the same way, we can measure outcomes of certain moral value systems and determine which are better. Looking at the unrest in the Middle East, I think we can definitively say they don't have a very good way to live, morally, economically, or really any other way.

A seed would be sperm, the ground would be the egg in this analogy. A tiny apple just sprouting on the tree would be the fetus. And by what you said " have less value than an apple because of the level of care and time required for them to become an apple" you would be saying that children have less value that adults, morally speaking. More effort went into making them a ripe apple, after all. In this case, the tree might need more water and sunlight to produce the apple, but you are protecting the apple and adding to the bushel. Don't destroy an apple a few months before it is ripened! Just because it is a tiny, budding apple that isn't currently edible doesn't mean it is worthless and disposable. 

The right to life surpasses all other rights. That fetus has a right to life, and it is not the woman's body. They are two different people connected by a cord.

Your source is from 1996. With changing rates of certain crimes, this source is largely irrelevant.

This stat from 2018 shows that (101/70239) (less than .2%) were from rape. 194/70239 (or just about .3%) were from life-threatening physical concerns. https://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/docs/TrimesterByReason_2018.pdf

So, for these marginal cases, I would allow the abortion. Now, 53000/70239 (71%) were elective abortions. That means that the abortion was for reasons other than maternal health or fetal diseases. So... how about that 71%? Since you are bringing up these marginal cases, are you alluding that you are okay with preventing these elective abortions? Or are you just wasting my time with this grandstanding and trying to smear me?

I didn't say that there was a law to give up your kidney. I said there should be. If someone destroys an organ of yours and there isn't another donor(assuming you can donate your organ to them) you should be compelled to. Should someone else die because of your aggressive and reckless choices?

They use a variety of means. I don't think they have stats on which percent are crushed, vs sucked up, or whatever other method.

But you are not cutting it off, you are crushing its skull. That is what kills it.

So, now you admit you aren't even giving anything up. Could one conjoined twin have the other killed because they are sharing blood? Nope. But let me give a more accurate example.

First, let me ask you, why is that child alive? 99.5% of the time, it is the result of sex with consent. It is not the fault of the child that it was created, and now it should suffer the consequence of death? In what world is that fair? A fair example of events would be you punching someone in the kidney, which causes it to fail. They will die without a transplant. Should you have to give up a kidney because you created this unfortunate situation? I would say yes. 

As the population decreases, you will have less people to produce food. One farmer can produce more than one person's worth of food because of increasing productivity. So, that would be a net negative.

You don't give up any organs to a fetus, in case you weren't aware. Also, there is a clear distinction that you are missing. You are saying that you shouldn't have to give up organs. Ok....But with a fetus, you are actually having it killed. A doctor goes in and crushes its skull and sucks the body parts out. I'm sure you see the difference between that and refusing to give up an organ, yes?

You have a responsibility to take care of your children, do you not? I don't see how this disproves my point. You can't kill your three month old toddler because it drains your financial resources. It relies on you to survive. So, had this been some random stranger, you would be right. But it isn't.......

So, if your argument is bodily autonomy, then let me ask you something: does a woman, pregnant with a baby boy, have a penis? Does she have 20 fingers and toes? Does she have 92 chromosomes(assuming there is no disorder in the child)? Of course not. It isn't her body, and therefore it isn't her choice.

I am against terminating human life. You are apparently in favor of that. 

And what is this drivel about population rising? President of the World Bank said: “Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty, and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements of our time,”. Guess what has been happening as this poverty rate has lowered......the population GREW. So, why you bring up population control is beyond me. 

Well, from my point of view, they are hurting another human being. Could you elaborate on how they aren't devoid of moral value? What moral value does a fetus have?

I think they kill gays just because they are gay. I don't think they necessarily have to have engaged in any lude activity, but that could vary by country. Through mistakes, we can learn about what is good and bad. Certainly that is one way. The entire civilized world has outlawed slavery because it has learned from its mistakes. Just because some of the third-world country hasn't figured that out yet doesn't make them correct in what they do.

It would be more like having a very very tiny apple. They are human, they don't become a human. Just because they aren't a fully developed(or ripened) apple, doesn't mean that they aren't an apple. A braindead person would be a rotten apple in this case. It has become corrupted in some fashion that prevents it from ever being an edible apple again. You are advocating destroying an apple instead of letting it reach its full, juicy, and delicious potential. Fun analogy :P

It isn't entirely out of the question to punish people for their biological urges. Anger is a biological urge. Anger can lead people to assault and batter someone. We punish that. And we aren't even punishing the urge in this scenario. We are punishing you for shirking responsibility via ending another's life.

There are certain acts and attitudes that are subjective and there are things that are objectively wrong. I don't care how anyone tries to twist it, murdering innocent people is always wrong. Raping people is always wrong. Enslaving people is always wrong. Now there are reasons that you believe what you believe. There are reasons they believe what they believe, but not agreeing doesn't make it subjective. Some reasons are better than others.

Your attitudes on homosexuality are subjective, whether you promote or discourage it. Throwing them off of rooftops for it would be objectively wrong.

Ok, before I say this, let's not waste time with the protecting sperm/egg argument. They are not human, but a zygote is, which is why I don't care about sperm and eggs. Now, if someone is brain dead, sure, they are human and you can "pull the plug". And while the fetus doesn't have brain waves, they are not brain dead, as in their brain isn't irreparably damaged. They are growing. Just because they aren't to a specified level of development doesn't make them worthless. You can't kill pre-pubescent children because they haven't developed their reproductive organs. The same applies to a fetus.

*tsk* *tsk* *tsk* still supporting open borders.

There are positives and negatives for restricting abortion. Yes, I do find that an unborn child's life is more important than whatever financial impacts may occur. The woman, 99.5% of the time, chose to enter into risky behavior that created this life, and now I would prefer restricting her ability to kill it.

I don't know how you can call a moral framework that abuses women as valid. Not all moral frameworks are equal. Not all ideas are equal. I feel like you are just saying it is perfectly fine in their 'context' to be consistent. However, based on the outcomes of a moral framework, you can get a pretty decent idea of what is wrong vs right. Western societies are much more peaceful, less corrupt, etc. They share a similar base framework. Now, contrast that with the Middle East. There is tons of rape, wars, etc. So, if you think that woman-abusing, rape, and wars are just as good as democracies with much less corruption, protections on private property, not throwing gays off of rooftops, then I'm not sure what else there is to say to you. You would have to think the Nazi's framework of killing and jailing any non-Aryan is just as valid as the one in New Zealand today, and I don't think you actually believe that.

Homosapien = human being. Where does your distinction come from? Why are you distinguishing the two?

Thanks, you too. I have caught a few comments of yours :P

I have seen people use <br>. What does that mean?

So, since some women are against abortion(consider themselves Pro-Life), in fact a majority of them according to this link SirAnonymous provided, then without a doubt, we should be more stringent in our regulations. But, you still hold this opinion that they shouldn't be like that because you think it is bad for women. And to the doctors, their literal business is abortion. :P

It kind of does invalidate their framework. If you are committing serious civil rights abuses, it doesn't matter if you think you are correct. You are wrong for doing that.

Personhood is a subjective concept that I am ignoring because it is subjective and not based on any sort of fact. Biology is based on facts, and you are using the "personhood" argument out of sheer convenience to ignore the fact that you are advocating for killing unborn children.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx 

What is your favorite TV show of all time?

Favorite type of dessert?

Do you like hiking?

I agree that you shouldn't have to bribe companies. But until that gets outlawed or something, you are only hurting your constituents by not bribing the companies. I do think this bribing shouldn't be allowed. But as long as one state can do it, they will, and your people will lose out on jobs. Unfortunately, that is how it works right now.

Yes, it would be better for almost everyone if it stopped. But again, not everyone will just 'decide' to not do that. It would have to be compelled. For instance, I don't particularly like welfare. But, if I qualify for a program, I would be an idiot to not take advantage of it. So, if they can bring a bunch of jobs to their town with incentives, they would also be stupid not to do so. Sticking your nose up at it doesn't really get you anywhere.

In Post#119 I said I reject the right of everyone to kill defenseless and innocent humans. That means that no matter the gender, or whether or not it is involved in human autonomy, I wouldn't allow it. 

Essentially, as soon as your bodily-autonomy actions interfere with the rights of someone else, that act wouldn't be allowed. Abortion infringes on the child's right to life, so it is not allowed.

So, I would reject either gender's "r1GhT" to bodily autonomy if it meant that their expression of it harmed someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Also, as far as I know, the term 'bodily autonomy' and (right to) 'privacy' aren't even listed in the Constitution or any important document for our country.

I stated my position three times in a row. Hopefully that'll help it sink in for ya.....

Yeah, I give him my stance for every bodily autonomy-related issue and he says I am not answering him lol.

Good points.

However, I wouldn't waste my time on him if I were you. He got a 90 day ban for being verbally abusive, and he is a troll that never adds anything substantive to the conversation.

Also, I had no clue the majority of women were pro-life and men were pro-choice. That must be new.

I gave a simple answer to a deceptive question. Don't be obtuse.

Being against child murder doesn't have any relation to bodily autonomy.

How can I spell it out for you so that you will understand basic answers?

Give me a list of issues, if you'd like to hear my opinion on them.

Nope. I restrict rights for when you harm others, which applies to both genders. Answer too complex for you? Typical.

Also....You are forgetting that a sizable amount of women are against abortion as well. So should the elected politician completely ignore and refuse to represent those women? And yes, you don't need to be a slave to be involved in slavery. You also don't have to be a woman or aborted child to be involved in abortion. There are entire businesses, doctors, etc that stand to profit from it. 

If you want to stray away from hypothetical situations, would you say that Sharia Law is a valid framework? One in which they abuse women and kill homosexuals? 

But personhood means absolutely nothing! It is not based in any sort of science whatsoever. It is some arbitrary, fabricated concept that can be used to justify any human-rights abuse.

Getting tax revenue by giving people jobs mixed with not giving them welfare would be good for the state budget as well. 

I don't really care because I'm not all about this crony scheisse, though.

I reject the right of everyone to kill defenseless, innocent humans.

Ok, so you think there should be laws banning third-trimester abortions, even though you disagree with them? I don't feel like this is an important point, so unless I misrepresented you there, we can just drop it.

"Only representing women". You said it would be the business of a politician to end slavery. That politician wouldn't be only representing slaves. Furthermore, the slaves wouldn't have been able to vote for him, so he wouldn't be representing them at all. So, no, abortion would be that politician's business regardless of who they are representing.

You are saying that we cannot call a child-beating culture wrong within their framework or whatever. That means you believe no moral systems are invalid. If it isn't an invalid framework, it is therefore a valid one.

How is the "living person" more alive than a zygote? By every biological measure, they are both equally human and both alive. One is just at a less-risky form of development.