Yes, but there's a [lack of a] connection between love and the problems that come with trashy people having sex: ie STDs and unwanted children. And unwanted children are a GIGANTIC problem with massive statistical correlations to poverty and crime.

While I agree that it's not government's business to legislate morality, government is necessarily involved in mediating child support matters. I can understand The Yell's repulsion at trashy young people declaring their freedom from responsibility for their actions. Illegitimate children (and the culture leading to so many) are a massive problem in America, correlating to its economic and criminal decline.

While I agree with you that it's a cultural problem without a government solution, I'm not entirely against The Yell's principles. (though not specifically regarding the genitalia. That's just nasty.) Our society lets trashy individuals get away with far too much. Law isn't necessarily a bad way to reinforce the most fundamental cultural values when they're violated.

If a man has 15 children and can't provide for one, I don't see a problem with one of those children's grandfathers taking a shovel to his face until he is dead. It's far less atrocious than the harm such a human being has done to his own children.

I've certainly entertained this rather off-topic subject enough. I agree with both of you to some extent. I'm pretty sure I've been explicitly clear how. Carry on!

Yeah, I'm sure that's it. Not the money and media herding ignorant sheep who lack culture.

I'm sure it's drug laws which keep the American people voting Republican and Democrat despite the coming collapse. I'm sure they're all educated and aware that our debt is unsustainable, but they keep voting for the two dominant parties because of drug law. They're just that cultured that they value drug laws (which aren't enforced, nor effective, and have deadly consequences to tens of thousands) over the survival of their civilization as they know it.

On second thought, no, that's ridiculous.

Yes, lying about how usage rates barely change when they change at all when you stop empowering drug lords and criminalizing everyone you can catch smoking pot (which is more than half your population) is totally an excuse to irresponsibly rape the economy because you don't give a shit about future generations! You totally countered my argument that Democrat and Republican voters have been shafting our country for decades!

I can appreciate that you've been scared into believing that, without drug laws, you would become a drug-addicted miscreant. But this in no way whatsoever disputes anything I've said regarding the consistently pathetic fiscal irresponsibility of Republicans for decades.

The damage done is indisputable. That's why you change the topic. The fact is, Republicans have betrayed this country, regardless of the relative betrayal of Democrats. None among them has stood up for responsible government for decades.

Out debt is already unsustainable. Were it not for our control of interest rates, we would already be unable to afford the interest on our debt at free market rates. This control of interest rates is dependent upon the dollar being the reserve currency of the world. And the dollar's dominance is failing, as more and more countries make trade agreements to trade oil without it and openly voice their intentions to move away from it as their reserve currency. Saddam and Qaddafi spoke of such intent. Lucky coincidence that our leaders needed to wage wars to remove them from power.

In any event, the dollar will obviously not remain the reserve currency of the globe forever. More and more nations move away from using it to trade oil, and more nations openly move away from hold it as their reserve currency. As our debt becomes more and more ridiculous in relation to our GDP, more nations move away from the dollar which they know will be inflated as a part of repaying that debt.

Massive damage has been done. And Republicans have contributed to it. They contributed to the debt and actively supported the dumbing down and feminization of our entire nation, resulting in less and less educated and virtuous men and women with the will and capacity to defend our nation.

It's easy to blame consultants or "the other party." It's more difficult to learn about and educate your children on history and basic monetary policy. And more difficult still to defend Republicans' innocence in the coming collapse.

Most Republicans are corrupt and don't stand for the values they claim to.

Caddell, and many Republicans, sound like Obama's whining: They cry about ineffective messaging, when it's the messengers being dishonest pieces of shit that is the problem.

Of course Republicans aren't attracting the numbers that Democrats are. Democrats are a party for babies who yearn for tyranny because they love it and the thought of not having to make any decisions for themselves. Republicans are a party that's supposed to look like an alternative but not slow down the progression toward tyranny.

They've been highly effective in their role in the coming economic collapse and tyranny.

Your party is achieving everything its leaders and sources of funding ever wanted. Congratulations.

You're arguing as if healthy people do nothing more than eat whole grains and skip red meat. This is not remotely the case. You're arguing as if health, diet, and lifestyle don't drastically reduce the occurrence of diseases as compared to the rates of disease among unhealthy people with poor diets.

The human body is a remarkable thing, capable and eager to repair itself in many cases, given the right nutrients.

Yes, you will have much less risk of heart attack or stroke if you're healthy. This is a fact. Heart attacks are not a natural part of getting older, they're a natural result of unhealthy diet and lifestyle choices.

What I'm saying is a well established fact. You've chosen to know nothing about health or nutrition. The information is readily available. Obviously, there's nothing I can say here that will change your faith that God controls your health, and that all of the chemicals and empty calories you consume have no effect on your body. The notion that disease happens just as often to healthy people as unhealthy people is absolute ridiculous, and we know with absolute certainty that it's ignorant and wrong. The notion that healthy people getting tests is more costly than the preventable diseases unhealthy people suffer from is literally insane.

It's a trial-run, with a tiny country. There'll be a lot more of this in years to come.

Einstein, that you think the systematic robbery of the working by globalist authoritarians is a result of stupidity is a sign that it'll work. They're getting rich off of this. They're enslaving whole nations with debts that can never be payed off, enriching themselves endlessly into the future. They're effectively enriching themselves and enslaving people. What part of that is stupidity?

Justinian I, the FDIC won't insure Americans' money from robbery by the government (and the international bankers who run it) either. We couldn't afford our debt already if we couldn't control the interest rate of the dollar--which we won't be able to do in the future, as more countries move away from it as their reserve currency, and currency used to trade oil. Robbery like this is coming to America, if we let it. Such attempts will positively be made, and the FDIC positively is not a defense against it.

Awww, did I upset you by pointing out that your ideology is the same as that of terrorists? I noticed you immediately ran with your tail between your legs from that thread the moment I pointed it out.

Did I upset you by pointing out that globalist authoritarian leaders all over the world push such ideologies on both you and terrorists in order to keep you both militarized, unthinking, and approving of having rights violated?

Did I upset you by arguing rationally while you just baselessly accused me of being a drug addict who isn't rational? Because the thread you referred to contains a 100% content-driven post by me followed by 100% off-topic ad-hominem attacks by you and others, too cowardly to even touch the topic of the thread.

I don't think crying about your incompetence and immaturity is going to make you feel better.

Checkups sure. Tests, as necessary--Always less often than the unhealthy, who more often have problems, more often suffer symptoms of disease, and more often require tests.

Consultations and wellness classes and exams? Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about. Health isn't complicated. I don't know what new age bullshit you're into, but these weird things beyond regular checkups are certainly not a part of the average person's schedule, and certainly less often for healthy people than unhealthy people.

I literally have no idea what you think you're saying:
"Instead of people not doing those things you will have thousands more people trying to do those things in every city. That costs money."

Instead of people not getting unnecessary tests, there'll be more people trying to get those unnecessary tests? What? Why wouldn't they do regular and logical things? Why (and how!?) would they both not get logical things and get them at the same time? That's not rationally possible. If you're complaining that "they" (who?) won't get "those things" (what things?), how can you at the same time that "thousands more" will try to get "those things"?

And you go on rambling vaguely about people needing checkups in order to be healthy. I've already decimated your ridiculous notion that our healthcare system makes people healthy, that it is the primary source of health.

Healthy people need less tests (none of the regular check-up types, void of symptoms of disease, are very costly), because they suffer from less disease. In regard to testing, they spend less on healthcare. Healthy people suffer less diseases (of virtually every type), thus cost less money both in treatment of these diseases and in testing as a result of symptoms to diagnose disease.

Yes, some people overuse the system. Those people are not "healthy people" categorically, and you've made no argument for the position that they are.

It's certainly theoretically possible that healthy people tend to overuse healthcare more than unhealthy people, but you haven't offered any more evidence or arguments for that hypothesis than for the hypothesis that French people are more genetically predisposed for life on Mars than Spanish people. You've offered no evidence whatsoever for your claim that healthy people use any healthcare system more often than unhealthy people.

Healthy people use the healthcare system less to treat diseases, because they get less of them. You obviously accept this fact. In this, they incur less costs.

Healthy people use the healthcare system less to test for diseases, because they suffer less diseases, they suffer less symptoms, and they have less health problems which prompt them to go to doctors/ERs and have symptoms diagnosed for causes. You obviously accept this fact. In this, they incur less costs.

Additionally, healthy (and educated) people accept that drugs and MDs (while they have plenty of legitimate purposes in surgery and even many drugs--I've never claimed otherwise) are not the entirety of medicine and health. Diet, exercise, and getting away from all of the toxins that government allows in food and water (and even intentionally places in them, in such cases as fluoride and accepting bribes to accept known toxins as unlabeled additives) are obviously beneficial to health, yet people who give attention to these things incur no costs to the healthcare system at large, and I'll wager they tend to pay for their own healthcare far more than those receiving state-subsidized care (which includes subsidies from everyone who DOES pay for their own care, in the form of increased bills, beyond taxation).

You seem to be alleging, as the sole basis for your claim that healthy people cost the healthcare system as a whole more than unhealthy people (who undisputedly suffer more diseases and require more treatments/surgeries/procedures/hospitalization/emergency care), that healthy people get more tests. That's it? Not only are you making this completely unbacked claim, but claiming it not only balances out with but exceeds the costs of unhealthy people who suffer far more diseases and require far more treatment?

Laughable.

The need/use for all of the first things you mention is much less for a healthy person. With healthy diet and exercise cholesterol and iron checks aren't necessary more than annually if that (more as one ages, and obviously if symptoms reveal there's a problem).

Exercise isn't provided by the healthcare system, nor is the healthcare system required to exercise.

I don't think having bumps looked at is a major driving force behind healthcare demand in the USA. If you're trying to make the point that "healthy people use the healthcare system too," obviously that's a granted fact. But you're claiming that healthy people use the healthcare system as much/more than unhealthy people. An example showing that healthy people use the healthcare system is not an argument that they use it more than unhealthy people.

Of course emergency care and all kinds of other treatment offered by MDs is valuable. But the notion that they're the primary difference between a healthy person and an unhealthy person is laughably ridiculous. It's absolutely insane.

I made no claim that MDs aren't valuable nor that treatments and procedures they offer don't serve a legitimate purpose.

What I said was that being healthy is not primarily a result of medical care. Being health is primarily a result of lifestyle: Diet (I could go on at length about this topic), exercise, and good habits are what separate fat smokers having heart attacks all kinds of nerve disorders and cancers from healthy people who usually live much, much longer and much, much healthier.

They don't need medication for blood pressure remotely as often as irresponsible people who eat crap, a lot of it, and aren't active. They don't need heart bypasses remotely as often. They don't get ALS and other nerve disorders nearly as often. They don't get tumors and cancers nearly as often. They don't need recent changes to ambulance and stretcher technology to accommodate 350 pound lazy, irresponsible people. In all of these examples and countless more, they use the system less. They cost less because the human body naturally heals and takes care of itself pretty well given proper nutrients and activity.

Healthy lifestyles keep people from using the healthcare system nearly as often. That's a clear, obvious, well-established, irrefutable fact. If you disagree, please do offer an argument rather than vaguely presuming that doctors are responsible for health, so clearly (the logic The Yell posted here, and you have just implied agreement with) healthy people must have used the healthcare system more in order to be healthy! That's extremely presumptuous and, obviously, false. I've explained the how and why. If you still disagree, please argue the point rather than hypocritically harass me. Thanks. You're responding emotionally rather than offering any argument.

Mature, responsible, healthy people do not use the healthcare system more. You sound drunk.

MDs and hospitals don't make people healthy, they give them drugs to counteract symptoms. You do not seem very familiar with this topic.