jb_nc
Google "9-11" and "truth"
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 5,391
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
smoke weed brosefSchroedinger said:Except for the stringent testing processes on drugs.
smoke weed brosefSchroedinger said:Except for the stringent testing processes on drugs.
I thought we had this argument before? Echoing Slidey, America's healthcare system is the most expensive in the world (per capita) and yet it produces below par health outcomes. Many cheaper, more socialised alternatives do far better for less money. A potential hitch to consider is the issue of pharmaceuticals --> it is a lot easier for countries to bargain with drug companies to get lower prices (as Aus attempts to do) while these companies still have access to an extremely profitable US market. I wouldn't even hazard to predict what will occur if the face of the US drug market changes completely.Malfoy said:Also, I disagree with the fact that his changes will only have minimal effects on the US economy, particularly in regards to universal healthcare, which is a massively expensive government program which basically grows exponentially in cost.
You could note that health (broadly construed) is a pre-condition of freedom. Clearly the dead individual makes no choices, while untreated individuals suffering from, say, myasthenia gravis or a psychotic episode are similarly inhibited.Malfoy said:I don't know how you can justify universal healthcare as libertarian?
And what if in exercising an economic freedom (to do what you will with material wealth without government intervention) you (knowingly!) generate ill health and suffering in some of the population?Malfoy said:A lot of philosophers and political theorists argue freedom is happiness. Where I draw the line on freedom is where it infringes upon the life, liberty or property of others i.e. you shouldn't knowingly do something that will have that affect (murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.). Also, to me, if a citizen has to abide by that, then so too does the state, if one exists at all.
Al Gore backs Obama for president
Former Vice President Al Gore endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, urging Americans to reject what he called the Bush administration's legacy of "incompetence, negligence and failure."
"Americans simply cannot afford to continue the policies of the last eight years for another four," Gore, the party's 2000 presidential nominee, told Obama supporters at a rally in Detroit, Michigan.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/16/gore.obama/index.html
Examples plsJaredR said:they just know that McCain's policies are often closer to those of Clinton's than Obamas.