I would like to discuss the rationale behind the government's using public revenue to benefit half of this nation's citizenry at the expense of the rest of its people.
I am not against helping the down trodden; my faith commands me to. Even though America was conceived as a Christian nation it is forbidden to recognize any religion over another so it cannot codify the requirements of my faith into its laws. How then can it justify taking money Peter earned and giving it to Paul based on some perceived need?  
Don't misunderstand me, I have accepted charity and I am thankful to those who saw it in their hearts to offer it. It didn't come from the government, they weren't required to give it and I certainly wasn't entitled to it. Why do a lot of people believe they have a right to the proceeds of someone else's labor?
This is one of the chasms that divide the right from the left and to me, worthy of discussion.  Any thoughts?        

How much different would the world be if Oswald had missed?

Come on into my Conservative/Libertarian head. I know it's a little cramped but this is a thinking head. It doesn't have a lot of empty space. If you would take your blinders off you may hang them on the coat rack. We try not to be one dimensional here.
I've just updated the wallpaper. It's a checkerboard design using copies of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I've matched it with white stars on a blue background window treatment and red and white striped curtains. The curtains are billowing because the windows are open. I like the fresh exchange. The ceiling is domed, no pointy head here, and the skylights allow sufficient light for constructing opinions from facts and ideas.
Please take a seat. I had the red chairs recovered in blue for you, my liberal visitors. I know the cushions are not as soft as in your own heads but I hope you will find them comfortable. Yes, Faultguy, it isn't your imagination they do lean right a little. Fguy, Indy, Spiral115, SL and Kauclair front row, please. Seniority has its privileges. Thank you Lamb12, for the suggestion and for accepting the offer to come. The rest of you please sit anywhere. Pantaloon, there are empty seats in the back row... JUST KIDDING! Sit anywhere you'd like...in the back row. Hmmm...I was afraid there might not be enough chairs so those of you standing be careful not to lean on the gun racks. Even though the breeches are open and the magazines removed they would hurt if one fell on your head. Oh,and Please be careful around the cable going through the floor. It connects the brain to the jaw. It's frayed and does fail occasionally, allowing the mouth to work independent of thought but I try to keep it in repair. Its American made. You can't expect it to be perfect. Yes Craig, the pictures surrounding the religious artifact are of family and friends. It's a small reminder of where my responsibilities lay. I keep everything else downstairs in the heart room. It's locked and only a few have a key so it's not possible to show it to you. It's mushy down there anyway. So to continue ...Is it hot in here? I have the A/C running but it's having a hard time keeping up with all the hot air. Anyway,let's begin. I am going to dispense with the invocation in deference to the non religious among us. Instead we'll start with the pledge of allegiance....What Fguy? No, I forgot he's mentioned there too. We'll... er...bypass that as well.

end of the **sarcasm** conservative thoughts ahead

These are the facts I base my pro-life stand on:

1.Without life there is nothing. Life cannot be rekindled once it is gone. It is the root of all our consciousness and makes everything we know possible.

2.Life begins after it has attached itself to the womb wall. It then has all it needs to become a baby human, the DNA for development and nourishment. Placing the beginning of life at anywhere else along the timeline of development is only done to justify abortion.

3.The fertilized cell will not become anything other than a human. Not an aardvark, not a zebra, nothing but a human.

Indy criticized my immigrant/embryo comparison as flawed because it compared an unborn human to a born human. She immediately brought out what I think is the crux of the anti/pro dilemma: when should a human be considered human. My stance, #2 above, is straightforward and simple. The Pro-side has moved the yardstick for the consideration of life all along the gestation period and I maintain it is only to justify abortion. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone; I have just never come across evidence to the contrary.

The Supreme Court never addressed the "human issue", it addressed the "citizen issue", denying, (appropriately) that because a fetus hasn't been born or naturalized it was not a citizen and excluded from the rights guaranteed to citizens in the 14th amendment. The immigrants in my comparison are excluded as well. Instead, the unborn are protected under the same provision of the 14Th that the immigrants are, our laws. The same laws that, in the past, have allowed for the massacre of Indians and the enslavement of blacks, the laws that can be changed at the whim of the legislature. My fetus/immigrant analogy  compared humans who have the same legal status, place the same burden on society, and want the same thing, a life to live. I don't see them differently. They should be entitled to the same protection. (#3 on my list)  

I am aware of the physical and mental costs one bears went contemplating, undergoing and recovering from an abortion. Ending life isn't an easy decision. Neither is giving up a child for adoption or raising one you weren't expecting to have. No one is immune from having to make difficult decisions during their life and living with the result. I just subscribe to the idea that life, even just the chance at a life is a far better alternative than the certainty of death. (#1)

Here is where another plank of my Conservative/Libertarian beliefs should be inserted along with some common sense.

4. Freedom and responsibility. They are intertwined and giving up one means losing the other. It means accepting the risks as well as the rewards for the freedoms you enjoy.

C.S.1 The exception does not make the rule. Very few things in nature are 100 percent. Anomalies exist in everything. Only when the exception becomes statistically significantly does it draw the original premise into question.

I don't begrudge anyone from engaging in what they enjoy but in doing so they should be aware there are risks involved and accept the responsibility for it. We are not an ignorant nation. We have the knowledge and resources to virtually eliminate the need for abortion but we must be accountable for our actions. Abstinence and masturbation are 100% effective. The "Pill", IUD, Vaginal rings, condoms, diaphragms, withdrawal and the rhythm method are most but not all the other ways to prevent becoming pregnant. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages and they possess varying rates of effectiveness. I can empathize with those who become pregnant but the baby wasn't a participant, it was a result and should not be held responsible. (#4)

The male too should step up; Virgin births are extremely rare. By your involvement in the creation you accept the risks as well. It's a fallacy you don't have enough blood to use both heads. Leaving offspring to fend for themselves is almost as cruel as abortion and there should be more stringent laws to discourage it. Raising the cost of freedom will certainly promote more responsible behavior in participating in it. (#4)

There are social programs in place to help children and parents who are disadvantaged socially as well as economically. The argument by Indy and others that Republicans are that cold hearted seems so inflammatory I did not look in to it. I am withholding my opinion based on that. (C.S.1)

I think I have addressed all of Indys comments. If not bring them to my attention and I will address them. Work and home have shortened my sleep pattern so I may have missed something. I sign off with another maxim that helps steer my direction through life.

Treat people with respect.
Every person you meet is either related to you in the past or will be in the future so treat them respectfully. People come in all forms. Everybody deserves respect. Even though we all have different outlooks, live in different communities and belong to a different social stratum, we are all equal. Treating someone as an important part of life makes him one. It acknowledges their significance in the world. It doesn't matter if the deference isn't returned. Bringing someone up to your level of respect is always preferable to lowering yours to his.

After reading his post, I had a very brief civil exchange with someone whose views very rarely intersect with my own. I came away with an odd notion. He seemed like me. Not a vile, hate spewing, socialist whose only intent was to strip me of my rights and chain me to the work place so I could subsidize his agenda monster but someone who, on a baser level, shares much of the same life goals. We both, I feel, envision a better place for ourselves and our children, to be free from want, and to be secure in our daily life. It's instinct and it is what makes us all human. The differences that come from us collectively, and as a society and nation, must be melded together to determine which course through life will be followed. It is here he and I part company and it is probably life experiences that separate us.

I was raised to judge a person by his contribution to society, not by his culture or skin color. If you were not willing to help yourself you shouldn't expect anyone else to. I was encouraged by my father (forced if I had described it then) to learn the skills that would make me self sufficient. It also brought an understanding of the value and pride in good craftsmanship. The wealthy who have never dirtied their hands in labor know nothing about it but its cost. Those unwilling to accept work as a necessary role in life will never know the value and pride in it. Both are problems with today's society.

It was impressed on me early that my personal safety was mostly in my hands. Stupid actions on my part never received sympathy and help always arrived too late to prevent my injuries. Today it seems people are too willing place their wellbeing and protection in the hands of others, putting them at their mercy.

I learned what I earned was mine and mine alone, but I needed to share. My mother showed me what is freely bestowed has great worth and giving is a superior action than receiving. I contribute freely to those who need help to help themselves but it is a choice not a mandate.

I place great value on human life because without it nothing I now know would exist however I recognize there are conditions that warrant extinguishing it.

His life may be similar to mine or totally different but what he bring to the discussion  is no less valid. It is in sharing our knowledge and reaching a consensus, no matter how tenuous, that we will be able to chart our future and it is necessary to do so.  

Thanks, faultguy

There isn't any reason to scrap the current system, just add government healthcare to the mix. That will keep any impact to the economy minimal. The program cost will be paid by a surcharge on private policies.

Doctors in the plan will be selected the same way NASA chooses its private contractors - low bidder. Since they all have the same diplomas they are sure to be equal in the expertise and qualifications.

Entrants must have a annual physical to assess their health and determine what action must take place to bring them into compliance with the national health standards for weight, diet, exercise, etc.

In order to keep conforming to the health standards from affecting the economy any monetary increase the insured receives from conforming must be returned to society. Quit smoking? The money that was spent on cigarettes must be used to retrain cigar rollers for another skill. Lose weight? The money an insured saves goes to supplement the diet of the poor. Need to stay out of the sun? You send a vitamin D deficient person on your Florida vacation.

Non-compliance would be allowed if they purchased credits (ala AlGore) from those who have an excess of credits. For example: someone who exercises more than the recommended amount would gain credits they could then sell to those who don't. The cost per credit would be progressive as it would use the insured's' income tax rate. Credits would be available for protein and vegetable calories, alcohol, drugs, sun exposure, exercise and anything else the government wants to make credits for.  The total cost per credit would be tied to availability and priced the same way as Obama's proposed healthcare plan - we'll figure it out later. The credits must be purchased a year prior to actual use and expire if not used within the year.  

Non compliance without credits would moderate payment on medical issues. I.E. If you need a knee replacement after the doctor told you to lose weight and you didn't you would see an increased co-pay. This, like the credits, would be tied to you income tax rate. If medical treatment costs $15000.00 and you tax rate was 28% you co-pay would be $4200.00 in addition to the normal co-pay. If you don't pay you still would receive treatment (our government isn't heartless) however further medical access would be restricted to life and death issues until co-pay is paid in full. A purchase of Credits for the non-compliance would also be required every year henceforth or until 2 annual physicals indicating a lifestyle change.

It has something for everyone. The poor get free health care. There is an incentive to live a healthier lifestyle and also a way to avoid having to. A public option and we don't dismantle what is working.  It's progressive, contains socialism, is slightly capitalistic and has a little AlGore thrown in for flavor. Who can't love it!