| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:18 Tyraz wrote:You clearly didn't read the link... We have a private system that anyone can go to should they choose. But they still have to pay taxes to cover a system they don't need or want. Most of our health care system is clogged by people who shouldn't be there. And who gave you the authority to make that claim? If need is subjective, you literally cannot make the claim that a heart transplant is any more important than minor cosmetic surgery. | ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
The younger teenagers near urban centers tend to be liberal. So too do some adults in urban areas. Blame this for the liberal media on youtube. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
| ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:24 JinMaikeul wrote: I think the world has a liberal bias... The reason for this is that liberal policy tends to benefit the poor at the expense of the wealthy and there are a lot more poor people in this world than there are wealthy people. But "liberalism" is a phenomenon of the West, the wealthiest part of the world. It's more of a case of the rich guy feeling guilty about his wealth  | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:27 HnR)hT wrote: But "liberalism" is a phenomenon of the West, the wealthiest part of the world. It's more of a case of the rich guy feeling guilty about his wealth Not that I disagree but it seems you could make the argument that this is more because liberalism requires a significant wealthy group to fund it. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:20 kzn wrote: But they still have to pay taxes to cover a system they don't need or want. And who gave you the authority to make that claim? If need is subjective, you literally cannot make the claim that a heart transplant is any more important than minor cosmetic surgery. Our taxes cover a base health care system because it is deemed as a basic need: like shelter, water and electricty. This has nothing to do with if people 'want' it or not. Also, you'll note that $580USD is far cheaper than any insurance policy you can possibly find in the US. So, if you'd prefer, you can think of this as 'mandatory base insurance, with a private option to take the express'. With regard to 'authority to make that claim': while this may be philosophically subjective, the health department has a position on this. If a decision must be made (which it hasn't yet), the cost to human welbeing is compared. That is to say, the cost of not treating a disease may be death, while the cost of a head ache might be mearly irritation. This is an extreme example, but you get the idea (I hope...) | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
But the reason we see so many liberals -- I think this is a bit simplfied, but I'll do my best: When I was on vacation in the state of Pennsylvania I noticed that the city folk (the ones who are most likely to go on the internet) in pretty much every major city around the world are liberal, while the rural folk (who barely have an internet connection, firsthand experience) are more simple, and more conservative. I bet if those people on the farms actually got a connection (but conservatives are resistant to change, so good luck) then we'd have more equal comment distribution. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:34 Tyraz wrote:If a decision must be made (which it hasn't yet), the cost to human welbeing is compared. The point is, it is an equally strong argument to claim that if a decision must be made, it should be made by the person whom it affects most - the patient. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:29 kzn wrote: Not that I disagree but it seems you could make the argument that this is more because liberalism requires a significant wealthy group to fund it. Not sure what you mean. Material inequality (i.e., a situation where a segment of society can be considered "rich" compared to the rest by some standard) is the norm in most of the world and has been historically but "liberalism" (or socialism) has practically never been the norm. Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas. | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:07 Tyraz wrote: In defending my points; this is all I'll say: With regard to 'who will pay for healthcare': New Zealand covers every man, woman and child in the country (regardless of if they are a citizen) for $3.65billion ($580USD per person) per year. @angelicfolly: it's those kinds of arguments which are exactly why there is a 'liberal bias' on the internet. With regard to health care - Money is an economic concept. Need is a moral one. There are a variety of ways you could justify why economics should affect health care (scarcity of service etc), but economic sustainability is not one of them. With regard to immigration - nobody said non citizens have more rights than citizens. This is about giving people the opportunity to show worth (nobody said you couldn't deport them if they wern't 'worth' enough). There is no justifiable reason to the contray. Health care systems are depended on the country in which they are implanted, naturally a smaller country may very well have a better system for that very reason. Overall picture is a must here. Then how do you get doctors? How do you afford the medications? How do you improve on current conditions? What are you trying to say, about my arguments? YOU HAVE to be able to sustain something to keep it around. You cannot spend more money then you bring in. You over provide and destroy the system NO ONE get's healthcare. That is one of the major points of being able to sustain such a system. What happens if us lets everyone have the best care aviable without regard to cost? Collapse is the crrect answer. Actually you did. You stating a government has no right to force a Non-legal person (not a citizen), while a citizen has to follow law or suffer consequences. It's not about what you can do for the country it really isn't. You already broken one law (not to mention others that depend on a certain status), cut in line of others and cause a hiccup in the system because of what you cannot do. It is justifiable when others are paying for you to stay, when LEGAL immigrants go through the system for years if not sooner, and come to find out it's ok to live here illegal. What type of message does a government send when it allows and rewards somebody for breaking the law? When does the government lose credibility when making laws then? You can pull this morality (this is besides what I have stated already), sad tale of affairs but that doesn't deny the reality that decisions have consequences. Those who go to a country illegality do not have more right to the country then one coming their legally. Actually it lessons their position for breaking a law they should have broken in the first place. It can be sad, they could of had the "right" reasons, but they just don't get a free pass because of good intention. | ||
|
cemlions
Canada43 Posts
On July 05 2010 19:37 Wurzelbrumpft wrote: No, i think hes right. I think the reason for this is mainly demographics. Young people dominate the internet and forums and young people tend to be more liberal. If you know crap about politics, liberal arguments just sound better than conservative arguments. Also the word "conservative" itself means resistant to change and is associated with rich old geezers, who are reluctant to new ideas. edit: Reach_UK already made my point I disagree with the idea that the word conservative is associated with rich old geezers who are resistant to change, and think that is a very ignorant idea of it. Conservatism to me means restriction of powers to government, limited taxation and personal liberty, while recognizing that it is the governments role to protect citizens, by upholding the law, and their rights rather than intervene in a arbitrary manner through socially based policies they deem beneficial for society. I think in the U.S that many politicians including George Bush have been poor representatives of conservatism, especially considering that they do not uphold many of the philiosophies, or policies typically held by conservatives, and actually act in away that could be considered socialistic; for this many politicians in the U.S republican party are reffered to as neo-cons. I do notice a liberal bias in todays internet, and I am not yet past 20, and associate my political views with that of tradinitional conservatism. In grade 7 my teacher told my class something, which I agree with very much, and that is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. By this he meant that nothing comes without a price. As I write this many prominent economists in the united states, and the rest of the world are predicting a market crash bigger than any in the last 300 years as a result of extreme government spending financed by debt in the U.S and europe. Look at what is happening to the euro as a result of the socialist policies that are bankrupting countries within the E.U. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: voting Republican has little to do voting with free market. In fact, free market is just a PR phrase that is virtually meaningless. Free market is basically having no rules and no taxes, increasing taxes for things like health care takes you further away from having a free market economy. Of course in many ways having taxes for things like health care is wanted which is why most of the developed world does it that way, a totally free market is no more wanted than a communistic one. In the same way regulations to prevent foul play are also needed etc. On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: this just says that (according to you) the current way economics and such are organized is more like rightwing thought, not leftwing thought. That has nothing to do with the merits, and I don't see how someone is an idealist for having a different view than the current status quo. I didn't say that it is bad to be an idealist, nor that it is good to be a realist. What I mean by "realist" by the way are those who wants to make it better for most since you sacrifice much growth to get everyone with you while "idealist" are those who wants to make it better for everyone since they don't think that anyone should be left behind. On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: is also nonsensical, most people vote on cultural (or psychological, say, a hateful person might always vote for rightwing populism) issues, not economic. Why people vote and what the vote actually means are two different things. The discussions are almost solely about where the states money should come from and how it should be spent, and that is the main difference between the parties. On July 05 2010 23:19 Mothxal wrote: of course people have those phases, but leftwing political parties aren't at all based on that. Maybe more young people vote leftwing, but that has nothing to do with the merits. That was my opinion, your opinion might be different. Welcome to politics. Also trying too hard to reach any ideal is bad, which is why it is called "trying too hard", as such I wasn't wrong with my statement anyway. You might argue that you can't try to hard, but that is another issue. | ||
|
iloveoil
Norway171 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:39 HnR)hT wrote: Of course, you could argue that the seeds of socialism are contained in the Bible, and that many traditional societies have been "socialistic." But material inequality is not sufficient for the development of socialist ideas. Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:38 kzn wrote: The point is, it is an equally strong argument to claim that if a decision must be made, it should be made by the person whom it affects most - the patient. Incorrect. This will simply lead to a contradiction, as both people want to be helped. Further, while the decision might be subjective, the method to do so is universal. It shows no bias towards anyone other than their medical condition. And finally, the decision rests with the person most qualified to make it. In this case it is the doctor, as he knows more about both patients and their condition than anyone else. @angelicfolly: Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it morally right or wrong. And just because someone has more money doesn't mean they need more urgent medical attention. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:41 iloveoil wrote: when did liberalism become socialism? Liberalism in the American sense is more precisely called socialism, and is different from "classical liberalism" or liberalism in the European sense. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
For the sake of the OP's argument | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:41 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world. That's a pretty ignorant view you've got there... Assuming that bible-thumping rednecks represent any significant amount of the global Christian community? Yeah... let's keep religion out of this. On July 05 2010 23:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I have an idea... For the sake of the OP's argument Does the term, "Centrist" even have any practical meaning? | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 05 2010 23:41 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Yet the people who follow said Bible are among some of the most conservative in the world. I don't understand the phrase "the most conservative in the world," since the meaning of conservatism depends on the society you are talking about. For example, in the Soviet Union during the Gorbachev era, hardcore Communists were called "conservative." If you mean they adhere to a particular ideology which we in the West call "conservatism," then as a matter of empicrical statement of fact I cannot agree... | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Does the term, "Centrist" even have any practical meaning? I'm sure you'll find someone who says yes somewhere. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
herO vs MaxPax
Clem vs Classic
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs herO
Cure vs Rogue
Classic vs HeRoMaRinE
Cosmonarchy
OyAji vs Sziky
Sziky vs WolFix
WolFix vs OyAji
Big Brain Bouts
Iba vs GgMaChine
TriGGeR vs Bunny
Reynor vs Classic
Serral vs Clem
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Bonyth
SC Evo League
TaeJa vs Cure
Rogue vs threepoint
ByuN vs Creator
MaNa vs Classic
Maestros of the Game
ShoWTimE vs Cham
GuMiho vs Ryung
Zoun vs Spirit
Rogue vs MaNa
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
