Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[vipvip68]

---

We're talking about the economical attributes
of the population here.
Whether the income goes
to the government or widely distributed does not
matter, the thing is how did they earn such a degree
of economic prowess while burdened with a bludgeoning number of people.

Though many people who support Mao Zedong will argue this... For me, it was actually because of Deng Xiaoping.

1. He opened up China's economy and started industrialization
2. He imposed 1 child policy in urban areas because of their overpopulation problem at the time (1.3 Billion in the late 70's)

If you factor in a large population and add to it heavy industrialization infrastructures, the result would be what China is now.

However, you have to remember that the cheap labor in China is partly because of their government's control over the population and the over supply of workers who compete for jobs just to survive.

Do you want to have the world's largest economy but your people live in deplorable conditions? If you knew what life is like sa mga sweatshops and factories, you would not wish to emulate China's formula for their economic growth.

RH bill was furnished because of the reason mentioned
above, overpopulation, but as I could see it that a greater populace
is not really a liability, it's even a resource that we can tap if the economy
could be manipulated correctly. For sure you would agree that one of the major driving
force behind a strong economy is manpower, no industry can function without
manpower.

A greater populace becomes a liability when dili siya ma match with our government's ability to utilize the population.

(Pareha ra gud na' ug Starcraft... suwayi ug build 100 ka SCV. Tanawn ta if maka daog ba ka sa game.)

It's all about balance... balance... Dapat HEALTHY atong population growth para dili mag huot ang hospitals, dili mag huot ang skwelahan ug dili mapugos ug OFW atong mga graduates kay kulang ang trabaho...

Then I wish to ask,
Isn't it that RH bill is just a scapegoat
of our economist as to alleviate poverty
and to uplift our standards of living?

RH Bill is just one of the measures to improve standards of living.... When you say scapegoat... it sound's like there's something devious, evil or sinister at work here... What is so wrong with trying to alleviate poverty?

[emow]

Charity can be double edge. Often, charity is done to reduce the sense of guilt we feel for our fellowmen. The right thing to do is what you think is right. Do it at your personal capacity voluntarily. But it would be different if you force Juan to care for other people because you feel pity for the less fortunate.

Yes, our taxes are already being dispensed for welfare, infact much of it is being used for wealth distribution. Its no wonder the cost of health care, and other services will never go down. When the government provides subsidies, related business involved are guaranteed a certain measure of profit from the government and they don't need to reduce their fees. The economics of government subsidies is lengthy to discuss, bottom line, a subsidized industry will need not compete, and the subsidized people will see their taxes increased over time.

If the government stops basic services, it would be like saying FU. FU to subsidies, FU to tongressmen, FU to corpotocracies, FU to middle men, FU to perpetual tax increase. Will it be hard for the citizens? Yeah, definitely. We are already ingrained with the entitlement culture. We accuse government of bad governance when we don't receive welfare, thus politicians promise welfare to win elections. For the pitiful welfare dispensed by the government, massive corruption is being done behind the scenes. An unholy alliance of business and government ensues...

There are really people who can't help themselves. That is a fact of life. We should let private charities and volunteerism handle that problem rather than government. Let welfare be dispensed as locally as possible to avoid widespread outgrowths of corruption.

[vipvip68]

Charity can be double edge. Often, charity is done to reduce the sense of guilt we feel for our fellowmen. The right thing to do is what you think is right. Do it at your personal capacity voluntarily. But it would be different if you force Juan to care for other people because you feel pity for the less fortunate.

Yes, our taxes are already being dispensed for welfare, infact much of it is being used for wealth distribution. Its no wonder the cost of health care, and other services will never go down. When the government provides subsidies, related business involved are guaranteed a certain measure of profit from the government and they don't need to reduce their fees. The economics of government subsidies is lengthy to discuss, bottom line, a subsidized industry will need not compete, and the subsidized people will see their taxes increased over time.

If the government stops basic services, it would be like saying FU. FU to subsidies, FU to tongressmen, FU to corpotocracies, FU to middle men, FU to perpetual tax increase. Will it be hard for the citizens? Yeah, definitely. We are already ingrained with the entitlement culture. We accuse government of bad governance when we don't receive welfare, thus politicians promise welfare to win elections. For the pitiful welfare dispensed by the government, massive corruption is being done behind the scenes. An unholy alliance of business and government ensues...

There are really people who can't help themselves. That is a fact of life. We should let private charities and volunteerism handle that problem rather than government. Let welfare be dispensed as locally as possible to avoid widespread outgrowths of corruption.

You strike me as an extreme Republican.. and with how government is here in the Philippines, a lot of people (including myself) will agree with you.

But, we have to be realistic about how we deal with the present situation. What you are proposing is not yet achievable and next to impossible given the situation we are in. In an ideal scenario.. fine but you have to also work within the framework of our situation.

[emow]

You strike me as an extreme Republican.. and with how government is here in the Philippines, a lot of people (including myself) will agree with you.

But, we have to be realistic about how we deal with the present situation. What you are proposing is not yet achievable and next to impossible given the situation we are in. In an ideal scenario.. fine but you have to also work within the framework of our situation.

realistically speaking, if we don't change and bear with the burden of change towards a smaller government, and always accept the lesser of evils, we will never lessen the social problems we all want to solve. With our current situation, it will be impossible... there is no even discussion of such an issue in our schools, media, and community... You only hear what people want to do when they are the government....

A free society is the only way for progress to be meaningful for the citizens. Government should not be allowed to legislate every aspect of life. Quality of life deteriorates when everything is under the arbitrary control of government. Eliminate that power, and you won't need an anti-dynasty bill... Government should serve justice and not of people. People will serve other people through mutual voluntary consent.

[Tirong-say]

Though many people who support Mao Zedong will argue this... For me, it was actually because of Deng Xiaoping.

1. He opened up China's economy and started industrialization
2. He imposed 1 child policy in urban areas because of their overpopulation problem at the time (1.3 Billion in the late 70's)

If you factor in a large population and add to it heavy industrialization infrastructures, the result would be what China is now.

However, you have to remember that the cheap labor in China is partly because of their government's control over the population and the over supply of workers who compete for jobs just to survive.

Do you want to have the world's largest economy but your people live in deplorable conditions? If you knew what life is like sa mga sweatshops and factories, you would not wish to emulate China's formula for their economic growth.

The 1.3 billion population is way too many,
and with that magnitude we could say that the 1 child policy is way too late,
did they reach a number lesser than 1.3 billion,let us say 900 million,
I think not. It even goes up to 2 billion.

In that industrial revolution I could say that without the backing
of the 1.3 billion inhabitants the industrialization process
will not prosper,as I've mentioned before such an endeavor should
be supported by manpower. Deng Xiaoping even made propaganda
just to enliven the Chinese people to support such undertakings.

Of course the condition of it's populace one could consider
as not so ideal,why,because they are a communist country.
But that does not deprive them the reality that they are earning
that much money through better economy and become number 2
in the world. It would be a different scene if they do adopt a democratic
type of governance.

[Tirong-say]

A greater populace becomes a liability when dili siya ma match with our government's ability to utilize the population.

(Pareha ra gud na' ug Starcraft... suwayi ug build 100 ka SCV. Tanawn ta if maka daog ba ka sa game.)

It's all about balance... balance... Dapat HEALTHY atong population growth para dili mag huot ang hospitals, dili mag huot ang skwelahan ug dili mapugos ug OFW atong mga graduates kay kulang ang trabaho...

How can something which backs up industrialization
becomes a liability?
We do have budget for facilities, but sad to say as per
survey merely 30% of the actual budget only goes to the
facilitation of the project. In short "corruption" is there.

Then why we do have so much jobless Filipinos nowadays,
it's not because of overpopulation, it's because we cannot
entice investors that effectively, why?, because in the application
of business alone they already spent so much money to secure
their investment handing it to corrupt authorities and public
officials.

[Tirong-say]

RH Bill is just one of the measures to improve standards of living.... When you say scapegoat... it sound's like there's something devious, evil or sinister at work here... What is so wrong with trying to alleviate poverty?

How could you even say that it's not,
when actually the change needed is not
to reduce the population, but to promote
industrialization.

It's like if a problem arise,
eliminate the thing that needs the solution,
problem solved.

[masakiton]

But the RH bill
is not subjective.

less anak = more chances ma hatagan ug maayo nga quality of education
good quality of education = dako ang chances maka sud ug trabaho nga maayo ang sweldo
trabaho nga maayo ug sweldo = dako chances nga maka hatag ug maayong future sa future family
trabaho nga maayo ug sweldo = less dependent sa government
trabaho nga maayo ug sweldo = taxes / income sa government

[masakiton]

Then why we do have so much jobless Filipinos nowadays,

(educational) qualifications

[boyq]

How can something which backs up industrialization
becomes a liability?
In short "corruption" is there.

Then why we do have so much jobless Filipinos nowadays,
it's not because of overpopulation, it's because we cannot
entice investors that effectively, why?, because in the application
of business alone they already spent so much money to secure
their investment handing it to corrupt authorities and public
officials.

Corruption remains a problem in our country right?
So, what do you propose to mitigate poverty in this let's say corrupt government-ran country?
How are we going to address the rising population which you refer as 'industrial assets' when majority of this 'rising' population belongs to the 'less-fortunate'-class(those living in slams and streets)? Do you call them (excuse me for a moment) assets or liabilities?
If those corrupt officials are trying to resolve the said issue of rising 'government liabilities' through RH Bill why not right?
If your main concern is corruption then RH Bill is not intended for that I think since the money involved is just a penny compared to their vast sources for corruption.