I don't seek commendations, just a better understanding of the idea that I'm trying to convey.

> but not everyone is capable of doing what you say you have done.

No, they are not. And nor should I be penalized for doing what I have done.

> But what if there are no jobs?

Then you can go out and create one, by creating a business.

> If your business truly has over 250K in taxable income,

Most of it is simply through reselling goods, but the government treats these sales as profit.

> To those who much is given, much is expected. How much would it take for you to HAVE before you felt like you WANTED to share your bounty, rather than be required to?

I often do share willingly. When income is forcibly removed from me to share with the "less fortunate" I feel less inclined to share though. It's kinda like a waitress adding gratuity to a bill; since they've already demanded what they want, why should I give them more?

> Personally, I couldn't live in a McMansion

I don't live in a McMansion, and I doubt I ever will. I'm far more comfortable living with fewer responsibilities, and less stress. I also don't want to earn that much money, because the more I earn the more will be removed from me.

So while education does benefit all, public education is almost as good as no education, and worse than home schooled education. The only intrinsic value I see in public education is children learning to socialize; ironically, the schools don't teach this.

Whatever your local (state, county, city) taxes want to support is fine with me. Limiting me to not going off on a tangent of "it's not federal government" when federal government is exactly the topic we're talking about is absurd. "Ignore the basis of your argument, and then try to make it!" Hah.

> And one statement: You keep saying that you are trying to convince us that you are right.

Because I am. My statements are not based on emotions, but logic and reason. Interesting how you can tout logic and reason while talking about cap and tax, but switch to emotion when talking about health insurance. The inconsistency here is laughable.

> nd one observation: You made a comment about me previously that I must be poor, and today or yesterday that someone else is probably obese. Where do you get those ideas?

Statistics. 43% of the nation either pays no federal income tax or has a negative federal income tax liability. 72% of the nation is obese. Statistically, you're probably fat. Poor people make poor decisions; as evidenced by your decisions in what you believe, you're probably broke.

Governments are far less easily bankrupted than corporations, making them far less swayed by consumer/constituent demand.

> - health insurance regulations in the US are so bizzare, only a very ignorant or uninformed person would call that a market-driven industry

I just quoted this for truth.

> And instead of trying something that historically has every chance of success, can be regulated and controlled without costing a trillion bucks, we're going to simply replace it with a parallel system that will not address root causes and will be impossible to control.

I know I'm ardently opposed to any system where the taxpayer provides insurance for those it deems fit to receive insurance, all while ignoring the detriments it will have on employer based insurance and privately purchased insurance. And make no mistake, the states ability to print money will ensure dependence for all people on the state for its health insurance.

Let me tell you a small story about this:
I was born into poverty. Shortly after my birth, my mother divorced my father as he was an alcoholic. My mother, having been a housewife for over 25 years, had no real trade skills and marginal intelligence. Needless to say, she could not support me on her own, so she turned to the state.

She found that Welfare would only give her $233 dollars a month to live off of. Knowing that no human can live off of this meager salary, she turned to private charity; her church. The church, under no mandate from government, donated not only the funds to get a lawyer so that my mother could receive SSI (money that my father had already paid, and could have been privatized), but also supplemented her a thousand dollars per month to care for me.

My mother never obtained a marketable skill.

I've overcome having no health insurance, no money, meager public education, etc. Not through the will of the state, but through the sheer will and determination of my own character. No state mandate made me the person I am today.

Am I terribly wealthy? No. I have my own business, which Obama taxes higher because it turns greater than 250000 per year. People say "Oh call the wahhmbulance!" until I bring up that net income is far different than gross profit. Then they say "Oh, so you really actually only made X amount of money, but you're taxed as if you made Y amount?"

In short, I am perfectly comfortable with the labor that I put out and the compensation that I receive for it. If you are not smart enough to do for yourself, I should not be expected to do for you.

> Since we do not seem to be able to take care of these things on our own, as citizens, the government needs to,

This thought process is the way that people are enslaved to the will of the state, and not the other way around.

> That requires that money be taken from the haves to give to the have nots.

No. If we value liberty, this action must -never- be taken, for the government will have set the precedence that it's ok to take your life and give you nothing in return if it deems it for the "greater good."

> ut what if it was you or your kids or family who were suffering? Would you have such a calloused view then?

I've suffered similarly before, and I have an even more calloused view. It has made me a better, stronger person. I know that I can overcome any obstacle in my life, and I don't need the state to do it for me.

Canada's GDP is 1.3 trillion dollars. I think you're way wrong on that, because 7% of 1.3 trillion is actually 91 billion dollars, the amount you claim you've "saved." Sorry, I didn't know Canada's GDP had grown past 1.1 trillion. Oh, and you're wrong again.

> You don't like ME linking socialized medicine to fiscal responsibility?? Problem is, YOU'RE the one who went off making all the grand linkages,

I claimed that taxing the wealthy for the care of the poor was pretty much enslaving the wealthy to the poor. To take someone's wealth and give them nothing in return is theft.

> iven 10-20 years, to massive erosions of freedom;

Look at the UK. Can't even say Fuck to an officer without being locked in jail.

> Otherwise... Enslaves the wealthy to the poor...

See, we take slavery pretty seriously here in America. We've fought it before. We know that if evil truly does exist, then slavery is evil.

This leads in to your premise that even though we're all born equal, the wealthy must be enslaved to the poor "for the greater good," right?

I've heard and addressed this before.

> And yes I do know, the parents tried everything but had no money to proceed with legal action and were told there are no laws which could make hospitals/medical care professionals do more than provide minimal basic care and/or put their entity's at risk of unstainable financial losses which would cause them to close their doors!

They didn't try everything, or their case was flawed beyond what you're stating. As I stated before, the practice of dumping a patient with an emergency medical condition is illegal.

Oh yeah:
> or put their entity's at risk of unstainable financial losses

Uh, not only is there no provision, but this would be impossible to do with one patient.

You're wrong here to, it's that of a Republic.

> The majority of 'We,The People' (by all recent polls) support a public healthcare option.

Misrepresentation. "We, the people" support healthcare reform, not a public option, and definitely not "single" payer.

> Simplest analogy - I do use the library which is in large part funded by public monies

Which could be a far better service by re-privatizing it.

> Perhaps we should do away with libraries as people should be able to afford to buy their own books and research materials?

Or we could create jobs for people through re-privatization. It will actually -decrease- the cost of running a library as private libraries usually only contain relevant information instead of a plethora of useless information that nobody will read. Ever.

> Empathy and willingly sharing our own 'riches' to help those unable, without judgement of same, is the best part of us.

Yes, it is. Having state forcibly separate me from my property gives me great cause for resentment, though.

> Even doing without wants so others can receive their needs is our choice to do or not.

You do understand after all!