What Do You Think?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:59 pm

Rights vs. Privilelge

I hear people say "we have a right to health care", "we have a right to good education for our children", "we have a right to decent housing" etc. etc.

Now when someone refers to the "right to free speech" I couldn't agree more because it doesn't cost anything, free speech is FREE. Things that cost money, like health care, education, housing are priviliges in my view. Someone has to pay for it. What's your thoughts on this?

David813 · Post by **David813** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:22 pm

Lon wrote: Rights vs. Privilelge

I hear people say "we have a right to health care", "we have a right to good education for our children", "we have a right to decent housing" etc. etc.

Now when someone refers to the "right to free speech" I couldn't agree more because it doesn't cost anything, free speech is FREE. Things that cost money, like health care, education, housing are priviliges in my view. Someone has to pay for it. What's your thoughts on this?
As a socialist I believe health care, housing and education are a human right and the government has a responsibility to provide these necessities to it's people. The cost is minimal when you look at the costs our Wall Street rulers have exacted from the workers that built this country. The costs of war and operating bases around the globe, the billions upon billions shoveled into the mouths of "Defense" contractors, oil conglomerates and the fortune spent on subsidizing Israel, the Colombian junta and other rogue states. Anotherwords, the resources are here now to provide these basic human needs; All we have to do is demand them. YES, we have a RIGHT to Health, Housing and Education.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:54 pm

Lon wrote: Rights vs. Privilelge

I hear people say "we have a right to health care", "we have a right to good education for our children", "we have a right to decent housing" etc. etc.

Now when someone refers to the "right to free speech" I couldn't agree more because it doesn't cost anything, free speech is FREE. Things that cost money, like health care, education, housing are priviliges in my view. Someone has to pay for it. What's your thoughts on this?
Here in the UK we do get these things "free" and also have the privilige of paying through the nose for it via income tax.

Although the majority of us consider the above to be of pretty poor standard in certain areas of the uk.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:30 am

shure.. that would be great. Just explain to me how you plan on funding any of these programs. The state legislature here is planning on pushing thru a universal health care program and they are bound and determined to implement it. There plans for funding it..... broadbased taxes.. using mainly a payroll tax.. and income tax reform. Ahhhh.. that's great. So the upper income classes have money.. so they can hire people to find tax loopholes that protect their investments. Payroll tax doesn't effect them because they don't work.. hmmmmmm.. sounds like they will not be paying alot in. Okay.. lower income classes aren't paying any taxes anyway.. cuz they are not working, or on welfare or unemployement.. so if they are paying any income tax it is minimually. Payroll taxes won't effect them cuz they aren't working.. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.. sounds like they won't be paying in alot.. so guess who gets to carry the load for the program.. yeppers.. them poor suckers that work thier ass off to make ends meet and are to damn proud to suck on the public tit. yep.. socialism would be great if you could find a way tou fund it. And don't go off on saying that the corporations could.. hell most of them have overseas production plants now anyway. They would just pick up and move out. Cut defense spending shure.. that would happen after the companys move out of the country. You can't change humannature.. people just natrually want to stay ahead of the Jones...

phew..

okay..

rant over..

Post by **kensloft** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:52 am

Neither Canada nor the UK are socialist countries yet they have universal health care that is paid by everybody. Rich or poor... you pay. When you go to the hospital you wait your turn as the service is dependant on the seriousness of your disablement.

The privilege of hospitalization sounds a lot like the attitude of King George's privilege that was actively driven out of America.

This also pertains to housing and education... privilege? Give me a break! Does this mean that if your job is not high paying enough then you are not deserving of life? Or education. Or housing?

The hospitals, schools and houses were built by people, known as the taxpayers, and now, seemingly, they belong to the elite? Do the lawyers and accountants think that they can take possession of these social infrastructures and do with them as they see fit for their classes of privileged existence?

Does this mean that your children are doomed to be the lower class serfs of the modern age? King George must be laughing his a$$ off at the peasant class that he knew as America.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:58 pm

How many times does socialism/communism/"free" anything from the goverwnment need to fail before you guys realize it won't work?

If the program in Canada works so well why is it that I have heard the Gov. officials have opted out for a different program? ( I admit I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of this other that what I have printed here, only comments from others.)

This being said, Kensloft is correct America is rapidly becoming a two class society of haves and have-nots.

Socialized medicine may be our only option.

Our rights have been summerized as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Health care certainly falls into the catagorie of a right as it is nessessary for life..

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:28 pm

Lon wrote: Rights vs. Privilelge. Now when someone refers to the "right to free speech" I couldn't agree more because it doesn't cost anything, free speech is FREE.

I operate under the slogan "your rights end where mine begin." In other words you do not have the right to yell "FIRE!' in a crowded theater and claim it was free speech, since that infringes on my right not to be trampled to death.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:29 pm

ScoupeSlave wrote: Yeah for socialism! I have loved socialism for a long long time. it would be a perfect system if everyone wasn't so greedy. but that will never happen in america. i love my county, just wish that we could open our minds to socialism.

-SS
What are the things you like about socialism?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:40 pm

Right to Free Health Care ---- It's there if you need it in form of State Welfare use it if you need it

Right to Free Education --- last I checked public schools were free, just teach your kids to respect their elders and they may actually learn something and move on with their lives.

People have just gotten lazy

I know it sounds rude, but I just get tired of people who whine about how mistreated they are by society, but are doing nothing to attempt to improve their lives.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:51 pm

David813 wrote: As a socialist I believe health care, housing and education are a human right and the government has a responsibility to provide these necessities to it's people. The cost is minimal when you look at the costs our Wall Street rulers have exacted from the workers that built this country. The costs of war and operating bases around the globe, the billions upon billions shoveled into the mouths of "Defense" contractors, oil conglomerates and the fortune spent on subsidizing Israel, the Colombian junta and other rogue states. Anotherwords, the resources are here now to provide these basic human needs; All we have to do is demand them. YES, we have a RIGHT to Health, Housing and Education.
Is it your thinking then that if a country is socialistic, they would not have any costs of war and would not operate bases around the world? If these rights, as you call them, are administered by the government, do you feel that it would be run more efficiently and corrupt free?

Post by **kensloft** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:52 pm

jahamaa wrote: How many times does socialism/communism/"free" anything from the goverwnment need to fail before you guys realize it won't work?

If the program in Canada works so well why is it that I have heard the Gov. officials have opted out for a different program? ( I admit I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of this other that what I have printed here, only comments from others.)

This being said, Kensloft is correct America is rapidly becoming a two class society of haves and have-nots.

Socialized medicine may be our only option.

Our rights have been summerized as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Health care certainly falls into the catagorie of a right as it is nessessary for life..
The medical care is still the same. There are people that are always talking about free enterprise being let into the system which roughly translates into if you have the money then you get served first.

The Premier of Alberta is big on this because they have been able to become debt free by the huge oil revenues and now he thinks that it was his acuity and not the money from oil revenues that brought it about.

He went out one night, got drunk and showed up at a homeless shelter and started berating a nmber of the people there as being lazy amongst other epithets that didn't get printed in the papers.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:57 pm

Sheryl wrote: Right to Free Health Care ---- It's there if you need it in form of State Welfare use it if you need it

Right to Free Education --- last I checked public schools were free, just teach your kids to respect their elders and they may actually learn something and move on with their lives.

People have just gotten lazy

I know it sounds rude, but I just get tired of people who whine about how mistreated they are by society, but are doing nothing to attempt to improve their lives.
With all due respect Sheryl, education in the U.S. is not FREE, local property taxes pay for much of it and other taxes for the rest.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:16 pm

kensloft wrote: Neither Canada nor the UK are socialist countries yet they have universal health care that is paid by everybody. Rich or poor... you pay. When you go to the hospital you wait your turn as the service is dependant on the seriousness of your disablement.

The privilege of hospitalization sounds a lot like the attitude of King George's privilege that was actively driven out of America.

This also pertains to housing and education... privilege? Give me a break! Does this mean that if your job is not high paying enough then you are not deserving of life? Or education. Or housing?

The hospitals, schools and houses were built by people, known as the taxpayers, and now, seemingly, they belong to the elite? Do the lawyers and accountants think that they can take possession of these social infrastructures and do with them as they see fit for their classes of privileged existence?

Does this mean that your children are doomed to be the lower class serfs of the modern age? King George must be laughing his a$$ off at the peasant class that he knew as America.
It appears that every form of government is having it's share of major problems with their health care systems. Here in New Zealand they can't keep good docs and nurses. They are fleeing to Australia, Canada & the UK where they can make more money and pay off their student loans more quickly. There are long waiting lists for critical operations. I know of any number of Canadians that go to Seattle and Detroit for medical procedures.

Basic routine health care seems to be without problems. It's the more complex and costly procedures that are causing problems. I don't have any solutions and I am not sure anyone else does, and I find it interesting that so many think another country's health care is better. No argument about the sick needing to be provided for, how to do it that works in the best interests of all is the $64 question.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:53 pm

Lon wrote: With all due respect Sheryl, education in the U.S. is not FREE, local property taxes pay for much of it and other taxes for the rest.

Your correct about the taxes Lon, but I have never heard of a child being turned away from a public school for their parent's not paying taxes.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:32 pm

Sheryl wrote: Your correct about the taxes Lon, but I have never heard of a child being turned away from a public school for their parent's not paying taxes.

I'm not sure the point your making here Sheryl. Not being a wise guy I just don't get what your saying. So forgive me if my responce is off the mark.

The child may not be forced out of school if the parents can't pay their taxes but they have been put out of their houses.

I think if we are going to have an honest discussion of socialized programs we need to stop calling them free. Someone is paying the bills. And someone pays the price if they can't pay the bill.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:59 pm

jahamaa wrote: I'm not sure the point your making here Sheryl. Not being a wise guy I just don't get what your saying. So forgive me if my responce is off the mark.

The child may not be forced out of school if the parents can't pay their taxes but they have been put out of their houses.

I think if we are going to have an honest discussion of socialized programs we need to stop calling them free. Someone is paying the bills. And someone pays the price if they can't pay the bill.

Ok I'll agree that they are not free, but my main point here is that the opportunity is there for them to obtain a descent education if they applied themselves.

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:11 am

Sheryl wrote: Ok I'll agree that they are not free, but my main point here is that the opportunity is there for them to obtain a descent education if they applied themselves.
I'll one up both you dudes... food, education, housing, health and clothing should be guaranteed. Do the arithmetic?

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:42 am

Kensloft, I have to disagree with you entirely. If human nature were other than what it is, I would happily provide what we term basic human rights to all people. But humans are lazy, will take for granted that which they don't earn, and allow others to foot the bill (emotionally and financially).

The lord helps those who help themselves, and that's pretty much where I draw my lines as well. If a person is willing to improve themselves through work/education/etc, then I am more than happy to assist them. If a person is not willing to help themselves, and likes to drone on about how I owe them, then I have no interest in continuing the conversation nor funding their pathetic lifestyle. No offense intended.

Why would I owe anybody else? Doesn't everyone have the same abilities, skills, talents, and potential that I have? On the whole, yes they do. So, to be rude to the general populace, quit the whining and go do something about it besides making the self-sufficient ones pay the bill.

It's an interesting fact that those who declare that health care is a right are yelling at insurance companies - which is a business - rather than health care providers. Which of the two are ultimately responsible and able to offer health care? Hmmmm...and that extends into a lot of things. People yell at animal control shelters rather than yelling at the people who breed, abuse, and refuse to care for their animals. People yell at schools for not being as high quality as they should be and then vote down every property tax increase that comes along. Etc ad naseum.

We cannot have it both ways, and we cannot take people to task for what is not their responsibility. If people decide to be grownups about it, and realize that their lives are in their hands, then perhaps I could afford to be more generous in the pursuit of a common humanitarianism. But the way it is now? No freaking way...you want something? Work for it, baby!

Just a little morning rant.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:26 am

kensloft wrote: I'll one up both you dudes... food, education, housing, health and clothing should be guaranteed. Do the arithmetic?

No way dude, why would I want someone to tell me what to eat and what to wear?

The sum of your arithmetic problem would be a large population of lazy people who have no desire to do anything. There would be no inventions, no creativity.

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:50 pm

A Karenina wrote: Kensloft, I have to disagree with you entirely. If human nature were other than what it is, I would happily provide what we term basic human rights to all people. But humans are lazy, will take for granted that which they don't earn, and allow others to foot the bill (emotionally and financially).

If human nature were as you described then I would disagree with kensloft myself. The fear of being taken for a ride by lazy people is real enough but in the case of health care here in the great white north there are no long lines of hypochondriacs filling up the waiting rooms of doctors and hospitals. That hypochondriacs exist is certain. What is not certain is that everybody in the world, other than those who will purportedly be footing the bill for these services, are that many in numbers so as to be overwhelming and destroying the health care system.

The lord helps those who help themselves, and that's pretty much where I draw my lines as well. If a person is willing to improve themselves through work/education/etc, then I am more than happy to assist them. If a person is not willing to help themselves, and likes to drone on about how I owe them, then I have no interest in continuing the conversation nor funding their pathetic lifestyle. No offense intended.

Fifty years ago a person with minmal education could get a lifetime job. Basic arithmetic could get you through the day with no problem, however, this is today and the education that is required is a lot different, let alone the concept of lifetime job. Putting people through elementary school just won't create the candidates for the jobs that will need to be filled in order for this society to continue to function. Guaranteed education does not mean that they will be treated to freebie lifestyles. It means that they will be able to get the education that is required through loans, grants, scholarships etc. That there be an even playing field in the education system is what is meant when I say that education should be right. Not just those that are deemed eligible by the powers that be.

Why would I owe anybody else? Doesn't everyone have the same abilities, skills, talents, and potential that I have? On the whole, yes they do. So, to be rude to the general populace, quit the whining and go do something about it besides making the self-sufficient ones pay the bill.

It's an interesting fact that those who declare that health care is a right are yelling at insurance companies - which is a business - rather than health care providers. Which of the two are ultimately responsible and able to offer health care? Hmmmm...and that extends into a lot of things. People yell at animal control shelters rather than yelling at the people who breed, abuse, and refuse to care for their animals. People yell at schools for not being as high quality as they should be and then vote down every property tax increase that comes along. Etc ad naseum.

The insurance companies are taking the money from those that want to make sure that if they fall ill then they will be as protected as their premiums will allow them to be. If they are sicker than they should be then their lifesavings are eaten up and life starts all over again only this time they are broke and sick. Could be on social security or something like that for the rest of their lives. I suppose they could be called drones.

Putting tax dollars into infrastructures designed to help the medical establishment deliver the services that are required to keep the population healthy through teaching hospitals and the such woud mean that there are massive savings to be had. Basic requirements for emergency care that shouldn't break the bank. It is the insurance companies that, for all intents and purposes, have corralled these resources under the guise of protecting the health and welfare of the ordinary Joe or Josephine. People are forced to pay their way whereas the pooling of resources (taxes) would mean that the ordinary citizen would be able to stay healthy because their bills are taken care of when they are in need. there are extras that the people can pay for if they want a private room or etc.

We cannot have it both ways, and we cannot take people to task for what is not their responsibility. If people decide to be grownups about it, and realize that their lives are in their hands, then perhaps I could afford to be more generous in the pursuit of a common humanitarianism. But the way it is now? No freaking way...you want something? Work for it, baby!

Let us assume that the United States does not turn out a nation of drones. Let's give those in need the benefit of the doubt and let them reach for the stars no matter where on the social spectrum they come from originally.

Just a little morning rant.

Thanks for the morning rant.

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:10 pm

Sheryl wrote: No way dude, why would I want someone to tell me what to eat and what to wear?

The sum of your arithmetic problem would be a large population of lazy people who have no desire to do anything. There would be no inventions, no creativity.

Why would anyone tell you how to do that. The spectre of Maoism is still entrenched in the minds of many. Look at how the emerging Chinese are dressing today. Anybody tells me how to eat or clothe myself is quickly given directions for the proverbial long walk off the short pier. The ability to get clothing of any design that you need or want would make the textile industry grow with a stabillity factor. It is not designer clothing that is being asked for because that would be silly. If you want designer clothing then you should be able to pay for it yourself.

Doesn't the government already tell you what to eat for health. Years ago I started a food coop and was called every nasty name you could think of by the same people that today are telling people how to eat which, for all intents and purposes, is the same diet we recommended way back when. It took the powers that be that long to agree with us. I am not socialist or anything of that nature. We came from all political stripes because what we wanted was healthy food for healthy living. Political recriminations and name calling had no place in what we were doing. People came first! Incidentally, this was responsible for the evolution of the health food stores that abound in this day and age.

Are you trying to say that there was no inventiveness or creativity that ensued from this movement?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:16 pm

kensloft wrote: Why would anyone tell you how to do that. The spectre of Maoism is still entrenched in the minds of many. Look at how the emerging Chinese are dressing today. Anybody tells me how to eat or clothe myself is quickly given directions for the proverbial long walk off the short pier. The ability to get clothing of any design that you need or want would make the textile industry grow with a stabillity factor. It is not designer clothing that is being asked for because that would be silly. If you want designer clothing then you should be able to pay for it yourself.

Doesn't the government already tell you what to eat for health. Years ago I started a food coop and was called every nasty name you could think of by the same people that today are telling people how to eat which, for all intents and purposes, is the same diet we recommended way back when. It took the powers that be that long to agree with us. I am not socialist or anything of that nature. We came from all political stripes because what we wanted was healthy food for healthy living. Political recriminations and name calling had no place in what we were doing. People came first! Incidentally, this was responsible for the evolution of the health food stores that abound in this day and age.

Are you trying to say that there was no inventiveness or creativity that ensued from this movement?

I now bow out of this debate. I'm not up to par with your knowledge. I'm just gonna lurk, read, and learn.

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:49 pm

Sheryl wrote: I now bow out of this debate. I'm not up to par with your knowledge. I'm just gonna lurk, read, and learn.

Awesome aim. Happy learning.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:52 pm

I don't agree that education is a right. the opportunity for an education is but not the actual education. A good education, mind you I said a good education, not a degree from one of the diploma mills like the State Universities in my state, requires a little hunger that would be lost if colleges were paid for by the state entirely.

One thing we are not talking about here is the total revamp of the taxation system that would be required to provide even a few of the items we've talked about on this thread.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:58 am

kensloft wrote: If human nature were as you described then I would disagree with kensloft myself. The fear of being taken for a ride by lazy people is real enough but in the case of health care here in the great white north there are no long lines of hypochondriacs filling up the waiting rooms of doctors and hospitals. That hypochondriacs exist is certain. What is not certain is that everybody in the world, other than those who will purportedly be footing the bill for these services, are that many in numbers so as to be overwhelming and destroying the health care system.
Mornin' kensloft. I wasn't saying anything about hypochondriacs so I'm not sure where that came from. I am talking directly about, and explicitly refer to the thousands of people who expect a right to health care, for the lowest cost possible (including free) and yet make few efforts to keep themselves healthy. See what I'm saying? The US has some of the highest rates for being overweight, under-exercised, etc etc so the individual is not demonstrating a basic respect for their own health. Yet by god it's their right to be fixed (at others' expense?) when their bodies finally wear out? Makes no sense.

kensloft wrote: Fifty years ago a person with minmal education could get a lifetime job. Basic arithmetic could get you through the day with no problem, however, this is today and the education that is required is a lot different, let alone the concept of lifetime job. Putting people through elementary school just won't create the candidates for the jobs that will need to be filled in order for this society to continue to function. Guaranteed education does not mean that they will be treated to freebie lifestyles. It means that they will be able to get the education that is required through loans, grants, scholarships etc. That there be an even playing field in the education system is what is meant when I say that education should be right. Not just those that are deemed eligible by the powers that be.
A person with minimal education can still get a job today as well. However, as we advance techonologically, we require workers with more skills. Education through high school is funded via property taxes. Education beyond that is funded through indidvudal taxes. The opportunity is there for anyone to obtain a grant/loan/scholarship - however, the program requires a bit of effort on the part of the person applying for these types of aid. Not a bad thing, in my opinion.

kensloft wrote: The insurance companies are taking the money from those that want to make sure that if they fall ill then they will be as protected as their premiums will allow them to be. If they are sicker than they should be then their lifesavings are eaten up and life starts all over again only this time they are broke and sick. Could be on social security or something like that for the rest of their lives. I suppose they could be called drones.
Insurance companies are a business that sell a specific product. They are no different than a company that makes and sells cars or bread or any other product. The difference is that people assume they are entitled to health care. My question is why do they think so? And why don't they take a more pro-active role in their own health?

kensloft wrote: Putting tax dollars into infrastructures designed to help the medical establishment deliver the services that are required to keep the population healthy through teaching hospitals and the such woud mean that there are massive savings to be had. Basic requirements for emergency care that shouldn't break the bank. It is the insurance companies that, for all intents and purposes, have corralled these resources under the guise of protecting the health and welfare of the ordinary Joe or Josephine. People are forced to pay their way whereas the pooling of resources (taxes) would mean that the ordinary citizen would be able to stay healthy because their bills are taken care of when they are in need. there are extras that the people can pay for if they want a private room or etc.
We already put tax dollars into health care - between the Medicare tax and the local/sate level taxes which fund insurance pools we are already fundung health care through taxes. We also fund theorugh premiums for thsoe who have no insurance or beenfits, and require health care that they can't pay for. I don't see how this is remotely beneficial to many people - certainly not the whole.

We don't want to be Canada or have your health care system. I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand?

kensloft wrote: Let us assume that the United States does not turn out a nation of drones. Let's give those in need the benefit of the doubt and let them reach for the stars no matter where on the social spectrum they come from originally.
Your comments make no sense and do not relate to anything I said. Drones? What's that about? And reaching for the stars no matter where they are from originally? How on earth would I stop that by asking people to reach by themselves, not asking others to fund them while they reach?

You've got some seriously set-in preconceived notions about what others are saying. Doesn't do well to try and converse with you when you respond with canned answers that have nothing to do with responses at hand. Not trying to be offensive, but it is a trend that you may want to examine.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:59 am

Just a couple of points about the NHS in the UK, yes it is free but the service is very patchy, it has led to what the press call the "Postcode" (zip code) lottery, depending where you are depends on the care you get.

the big NHS teaching hospitals are amongst the best in the world and Graet Ormond street hospital for sick children is rated as THE best in some fields.

Nye Bevan whose belief that we should be treated "from the Cradle to the Grave" must now be revolving in his. Various treatments that had nominal charges are now very expensive, eye care, dental care etc.

A lot of it comes down to this, do you believe that there will always be an underclass in any society that because of various factors need to be supported by the rest of that society.

there are some strange anomalies here in the UK, Family allowance for example is paid to everyone with children of a certain age, you could be a multi millionaire or a pauper but the government still gives you approx Ã‚£50 every forthnight.

Post by **kensloft** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:18 am

AK, you are right. It is not your bag. There are many millions of Americans that disagree with you from all political stripes and social strata. I'm not trying to turn the US medicaid into Canada's form of medical coverage.

I blame the advertising agencies and the car industries for turning the nation into its obese state of today because of the lifestyles that they are holding up as the status quo for being succesful in America. Just as there are those that take the newspapers as being the gospel truth of the written word, so too are the advertisers being seen by the unsuspecting public as the paradigm of good living.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:05 pm

kensloft wrote:

I blame the advertising agencies and the car industries for turning the nation into its obese state of today because of the lifestyles that they are holding up as the status quo for being succesful in America. Just as there are those that take the newspapers as being the gospel truth of the written word, so too are the advertisers being seen by the unsuspecting public as the paradigm of good living.

You are right on kensloft.

I saw a doctor speak not long ago on the lifestyle of Americans. he ask the audience how many had grandparents that lived into thier 80"s and a lot raised their hand, he then asked how many of the grandparents had ate healthy low fat diets and every hand went down. Doc. said yeah but they did take time to eat as a family and they found time to sit on their front porches at night.( a lost art).

Everybloke is trying to meet an impossible standsrd of what we have been lead to beleive is success.

Your right to Karenina, people are quick to say I have the right to.... but real slow to say it is my responciblity to....

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:25 pm

kensloft wrote: AK, you are right. It is not your bag. There are many millions of Americans that disagree with you from all political stripes and social strata. I'm not trying to turn the US medicaid into Canada's form of medical coverage.

I blame the advertising agencies and the car industries for turning the nation into its obese state of today because of the lifestyles that they are holding up as the status quo for being succesful in America. Just as there are those that take the newspapers as being the gospel truth of the written word, so too are the advertisers being seen by the unsuspecting public as the paradigm of good living.
Bunk!!! Advertising Agencies and the auto industry are doing their thing. Don't blame them for doing what they are supposed to be doing. The real problem is the CHOICES that people make. People must take responsibility for their choices in what they purchase, eat & read. If they are influenced by advertising, so be it. It's still their choice. That's like blaming McDonald's for some folks obesity.

Post by **kensloft** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:11 pm

Lon wrote: Bunk!!! Advertising Agencies and the auto industry are doing their thing. Don't blame them for doing what they are supposed to be doing. The real problem is the CHOICES that people make. People must take responsibility for their choices in what they purchase, eat & read. If they are influenced by advertising, so be it. It's still their choice. That's like blaming McDonald's for some folks obesity.
From what I hear people would never make it to old age under McD's concept of diet.

Right choices? When they are led to believe that the choice of the easy living is the way to go then the advertisers, that work for the car and food industries, make the life with their product look like the only way that is worth living. There is no equal time in advertising as there is in politics so the chance to rebutt the assertions is not there. It is akin to locking the barn doors after the animals have escaped. This is a new phenomenon. Obesity will have to be studied to death before people will admit to the causes.

The automobile and advertising industries are doing their things doesn't mean that they are making the right decisions. If they were making all the right decisions then it would be bunk but under the circumstances they aren't, therefore, they are part of the problem.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:31 am

kensloft wrote: From what I hear people would never make it to old age under McD's concept of diet.

Right choices? When they are led to believe that the choice of the easy living is the way to go then the advertisers, that work for the car and food industries, make the life with their product look like the only way that is worth living. There is no equal time in advertising as there is in politics so the chance to rebutt the assertions is not there. It is akin to locking the barn doors after the animals have escaped. This is a new phenomenon. Obesity will have to be studied to death before people will admit to the causes.

The automobile and advertising industries are doing their things doesn't mean that they are making the right decisions. If they were making all the right decisions then it would be bunk but under the circumstances they aren't, therefore, they are part of the problem.
I don't believe that Mc Donald's has ever made any claims to what is a proper diet.

There may be no equal time in Advertising, but there is something called common sense. I am not unduly influenced by advertising and I doubt that you are. Why deny that right to decide common sense issues to others. People are influenced by many things besides advertising Ken. "Mein Kampf"

by Adoplh Hitler was bought into by many. I see little difference between advertising and best selling books that may be viewed to have a negative effect on society in general. The Koran, the Bible, Book of Mormon, The Torah could all be viewed as a form of advertising and we are free to choose or not choose the messages. Unlike commerical advertising, there are severe penalties for not believing the message of the former.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:51 am

kensloft wrote: AK, you are right. It is not your bag. There are many millions of Americans that disagree with you from all political stripes and social strata.
(confused)...ok...I have no problem with millions of Americans disagreeing with me; that is their right. I would wonder how many of them pay their own premiums, though.

kensloft wrote: I'm not trying to turn the US medicaid into Canada's form of medical coverage.
I didn't think you were, but sometimes these posts come across oddly.

Unfortunately, I'm no longer exactly sure what you are trying to say. The conversation seems to keep slipping off into side tangents that I'm not seeing.

kensloft wrote: I blame the advertising agencies and the car industries for turning the nation into its obese state of today because of the lifestyles that they are holding up as the status quo for being succesful in America. Just as there are those that take the newspapers as being the gospel truth of the written word, so too are the advertisers being seen by the unsuspecting public as the paradigm of good living.
I'm not sure why it's necessary to blame anyone. Sometimes things just are - and in the case of politics, things are because the vast majority chooses it to be so.

But this statement demonstrates the deep ideological differences we hold. You are trying to defend people from the bad guys (advertising agencies) while I believe that people are smart enough to take care of themselves, and resist temptation (which comes in many guises, including advertising).

If a car dealership produces a commercial in order to sell their product, and some guy goes in and buys a car he can't afford - who is to blame? Or rather, who is responsible? No one twisted that guy's arm, he wasn't put into a prison and tortured until he signed papers...He was perfectly free to make his own decision, good or bad. And I strongly believe that he should feel the consequence of that decision, whether good or bad.

Surely this isn't too much to ask? I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my questions directly. These side-spins aren't making sense to me.

and Lon, thanks for the great posts. I agree

Post by **kensloft** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:34 am

Lon wrote: I don't believe that Mc Donald's has ever made any claims to what is a proper diet.

There may be no equal time in Advertising, but there is something called common sense. I am not unduly influenced by advertising and I doubt that you are. Why deny that right to decide common sense issues to others. People are influenced by many things besides advertising Ken. "Mein Kampf"

by Adoplh Hitler was bought into by many. I see little difference between advertising and best selling books that may be viewed to have a negative effect on society in general. The Koran, the Bible, Book of Mormon, The Torah could all be viewed as a form of advertising and we are free to choose or not choose the messages. Unlike commerical advertising, there are severe penalties for not believing the message of the former.
It was the German Philosopher Goethe who made the statement, "Call a man by a name often enough and soon he shall respond." The continuous barrage of advertising for any particular product produces this effect in a person's mind. Truth in advertising adds to this dilemma. This concept, to many, means that there will be what the advertisers promise being delivered either wholly or partially. It is akin to the beer advertising that promises good times and babes if you drink their particular brand of beer. If they are told often enough that these things will happen then you can be sure that the buyer will be expecting something of this to be true. If not the harem then at least a portion of the promised Eden.

In your particular case I tend to think that I am talking to someone that has never, ever been taken in by an advertisement that pushed a product and its resulting benefits to a new, promised lifestyle. All others have made a mistake and have made bad choices because they do not have common sense.

Over the milennia more people have met their maker because of the Bibles than Mein Kampf delivered. The difference being that MK was a new phenomenon that had the technology of the day proving to be able to deliver more people, faster to their maker. People were free to choose whether or not to buy into MK but they didn't and soon found themselves surrounded by a killing machine unlike unto anything that had ever been seen before. Advertising has delivered the same goods only there are no bombs dropping as in WWII. These are a more subtle variation where the bombed are now being led down the road of ill and diseased health as opposed to being blown to smithereens on the spot. It takes two to tango and to say that one or the other is to blame is faulty logic at best.

Having said this I am as guilty of laying blame on only one of the parties concerned. I did so because the moneyed, allegedly, well informed people are using their psychology on the buyers. The buyers being, as a rule, less sophisticated and more impressionable than the purveyors of the goods.

In summation I would like to state the obvious of the unintelligent, unsophisticated buyers being led down the garden path to oblivion by those who should have known better. Choice sometimes comes after the fact as is poignantly expressed by the health dilemmas of today.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:46 am

kensloft wrote: It was the German Philosopher Goethe who made the statement, "Call a man by a name often enough and soon he shall respond." The continuous barrage of advertising for any particular product produces this effect in a person's mind. Truth in advertising adds to this dilemma. This concept, to many, means that there will be what the advertisers promise being delivered either wholly or partially. It is akin to the beer advertising that promises good times and babes if you drink their particular brand of beer. If they are told often enough that these things will happen then you can be sure that the buyer will be expecting something of this to be true. If not the harem then at least a portion of the promised Eden.

In your particular case I tend to think that I am talking to someone that has never, ever been taken in by an advertisement that pushed a product and its resulting benefits to a new, promised lifestyle. All others have made a mistake and have made bad choices because they do not have common sense.

Over the milennia more people have met their maker because of the Bibles than Mein Kampf delivered. The difference being that MK was a new phenomenon that had the technology of the day proving to be able to deliver more people, faster to their maker. People were free to choose whether or not to buy into MK but they didn't and soon found themselves surrounded by a killing machine unlike unto anything that had ever been seen before. Advertising has delivered the same goods only there are no bombs dropping as in WWII. These are a more subtle variation where the bombed are now being led down the road of ill and diseased health as opposed to being blown to smithereens on the spot. It takes two to tango and to say that one or the other is to blame is faulty logic at best.

Having said this I am as guilty of laying blame on only one of the parties concerned. I did so because the moneyed, allegedly, well informed people are using their psychology on the buyers. The buyers being, as a rule, less sophisticated and more impressionable than the purveyors of the goods.

In summation I would like to state the obvious of the unintelligent, unsophisticated buyers being led down the garden path to oblivion by those who should have known better. Choice sometimes comes after the fact as is poignantly expressed by the health dilemmas of today.

"In your particular case I tend to think that I am talking to someone that has never, ever been taken in by an advertisement that pushed a product and its resulting benefits to a new, promised lifestyle. All others have made a mistake and have made bad choices because they do not have common sense."

Let's just say I am a skeptic that dances to his own tune and that there are others that probably like the same tune. I am not one that feels the need or even has the desire to protect others from their own ignorance and stupidity, children, yes, adults, no.

Post by **kensloft** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:47 pm

Lon wrote: "In your particular case I tend to think that I am talking to someone that has never, ever been taken in by an advertisement that pushed a product and its resulting benefits to a new, promised lifestyle. All others have made a mistake and have made bad choices because they do not have common sense."

Let's just say I am a skeptic that dances to his own tune and that there are others that probably like the same tune. I am not one that feels the need or even has the desire to protect others from their own ignorance and stupidity, children, yes, adults, no.
Cool by me, lon.