|
On November 06 2010 19:06 Slix36 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
There's a big difference between a Ferrari and a life. The fact of the matter is health services (like for example the NHS) mean those who would otherwise suffer have the chance to take their life back. If you're really telling us that you would rather have a bigger pocket than save the life or good health of a stranger then you tell us a lot about your character. Personally i'm disgusted.
There is no intrinsic difference between a Ferrari and healthcare (and its not "a life", since everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)).
They are both utility gains, and the amount of value placed on them by any given individual is different. You are claiming the authority to tell everyone that they must purchase healthcare services for everything *you* decide is a dangerous condition, no matter what they want.
Its pure, uncontrolled arrogance at heart.
Yeah, see, I don't get that. At all. Can a conservative step up and explain their reasoning?
I don't actually have an opinion either way on same-sex marriage, and really the only solid reasoning behind an "against" opinion on same-sex marriage is "we don't know enough about it to establish what benefits it should have".
As far as abortion, I should think it obvious. (Almost) everyone agrees that murder is wrong, and should be punished. (Almost) everyone agrees that killing a 3 year old is murder. (Almost) everyone agrees that killing a 2 year old is murder, and so on and so forth. Where disagreement occurs, people have different opinions as to when "life" itself starts - and no, there is no fact of the matter here, it is pure opinion.
The opinion that life begins at conception is where it gets to be a bit ridiculous, but you can't expect religious people to be reasonable. It is, however, possible to be against abortion entirely and still have a vaguely decent argument for it.
On November 07 2010 04:52 jello_biafra wrote:
A Ferrari is a luxury item, health care is a basic need, not really comparable.
In the UK I guess you could theoretically somehow forfeit your use of the NHS and pay a negligibly small amount of tax less than you normally would and save up for years and years and buy yourself a Ferrari but that would be totally retarded. I guess in the US the amount of money you have to pay on insurance is so large that you'd have loads of extra money to buy your Ferrari much more quickly when forfeiting your health care.
It doesn't matter if its a luxury item. The argument that comment was made in response to was "it helps everyone, so everyone should pay for it". There are two ways (in theory) that could be understood - but only one of them is actually backed up by facts, so that was the one I assumed was intended. By that understanding, Ferraris for all is perfectly analogous to healthcare for all, except in absolute costs and absolute gains.
And you are laughably wrong if you think that ending the NHS wouldn't instantly chop like 10% off of every marginale tax rate in the UK (and that is a wildly conservative estimate).
|
On November 07 2010 04:52 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 04:30 Kimaker wrote:On November 06 2010 19:32 rAize- wrote:On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
I think you are trying to sound smart. Giving people care on the costs of society are nothing like giving people ferraris on the costs of society. A ferrari and health are two very diffrent things you cant just make up an analogy with two things like that. And yes helping everybody on the costs of everybody, that sounds pretty justifiable to me! If you dont like it why dont you end your life, it seems you dont want it and neither want anyone pay for it! The only real differential in value is what someone is willing to pay for either. And that changes by person. Since people make money on both Ferrari's and Health Care, and everyone wants to get the most for their work, while everyone else is simultaneously trying to get their work for the least, I'd say it's a perfectly apt analogy when you consider that both are simply the end results of another persons labor that you're attempting to procure. To most people, sure, one is infinitely more valuable than the other, and I'd personally take health care, but for that small group who'd be willing to say, "I'll live without health care for a short bit, save my money and buy a ferrari." they have that right, and that is a personal financial decision they should be able to make. A Ferrari is a luxury item, health care is a basic need, not really comparable. In the UK I guess you could theoretically somehow forfeit your use of the NHS and pay a negligibly small amount of tax less than you normally would and save up for years and years and buy yourself a Ferrari but that would be totally retarded. I guess in the US the amount of money you have to pay on insurance is so large that you'd have loads of extra money to buy your Ferrari much more quickly when forfeiting your health care. + Show Spoiler [Why the US needs to change their healt…] +
I can dig the cost per capita being retardedly high, and I have an alternative to lowering the costs, but that's neither here nor there.
Life expectancy has too many other variables that factor in to it to be of any use as an indicator of the quality of a nations health care. US also has more homicides than those other countries, that factors in, and has nothing to do with the health care system in place.
Infant Mortality is an interesting one. I've not looked into that enough to make a call one way or the other, but I have a feeling that there may be more to that as well than meets the eye. As of now, I'll concede the point.
And whether you think it's retarded or not (I agree, it would be STOOPID to give up your health care even temporarily for something as superfluous as a Car) it's still their money that they worked for. They can do with it as they please.
|
On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
There is no intrinsic difference between a Ferrari and healthcare (and its not "a life", since everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)).
...wat.
You cannot be serious.
Alright that's it, I'm out of here.
|
On November 07 2010 05:31 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
There is no intrinsic difference between a Ferrari and healthcare (and its not "a life", since everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). ...wat. You cannot be serious. Alright that's it, I'm out of here.
About which part?
|
On November 07 2010 04:02 .Aar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 03:58 Gigaudas wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is not being extreme in the US, right?:
- Wanting the government to have less power over peoples lives and at the same time wanting to make laws against same-sex marriage and abortion.
Yeah, see, I don't get that. At all. Can a conservative step up and explain their reasoning?
I am libertarian on these two issues. While I am pro-life personally, I think it is ok for a person to decide if they want to abort their baby. While I don't agree with it, I defend your right to choose. On same-sex marriage, I take the Family Guy approach. Peter says that if gays want to be as miserable as straight people, then go right ahead  I don't know if other conservatives are mad about wanting to call it marriage, or just think they shouldn't be able to. I think they should be able to get the same legal rights as a married couple.
|
|
|
I just dont understand what seems to be the majority of us citizens opinion.
Why should I pay for someone to get healthy?
What the fuck? Are you people really that cold?
|
On November 07 2010 05:54 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 05:31 Krigwin wrote:On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
There is no intrinsic difference between a Ferrari and healthcare (and its not "a life", since everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). ...wat. You cannot be serious. Alright that's it, I'm out of here. About which part?
Are you seriously trying to compare life-saving proper medical care that every first-world country has with a completely inessential luxury item whose purpose and primary function can be replicated by any number of almost identical if not visually similar items? They're not even in remotely similar categories of... things.
I'm not arguing either position in this debate, I'm just trying to grasp if that's seriously the analogy you're attempting to make.
|
On November 07 2010 07:00 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 05:54 kzn wrote:On November 07 2010 05:31 Krigwin wrote:On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
There is no intrinsic difference between a Ferrari and healthcare (and its not "a life", since everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). ...wat. You cannot be serious. Alright that's it, I'm out of here. About which part? Are you seriously trying to compare life-saving proper medical care that every first-world country has with a completely inessential luxury item whose purpose and primary function can be replicated by any number of almost identical if not visually similar items? They're not even in remotely similar categories of... things. I'm not arguing either position in this debate, I'm just trying to grasp if that's seriously the analogy you're attempting to make.
They are identical as far as matters for the argument that healthcare should be publicly provided.
|
Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 06:33 Tufas wrote:
I study political science in Vienna and I think that some U.S. politicians are just to be called fascist.
Although we also have this right partys rising in the E.U. , we at least name them for that and try to deny political power as hard as we can. You seem to lack a whole lot of political conscience.
100 % of my friends and colleagues agree : How can you be against socialism. It is one of the great human achievements. HCR, best thing in the world. You need to help those who cannot help themselves. Wealth does not trickle down, nor ever will it.
This might still be a unipolar world with the U.S. to the A. on the top but this is going to change fast. You have to prepare for this now - Not only your typical enemys like china or russia, also india, brazil - to name few. And, in case you didnt know, the E.U. We want to be independent, get our oil reserves and trade in € and have our own army with camparable size to the U.N. in 2020.
Another big problem with the U.S. : In my eyes you should pay millions or billions to every country that your CIA overthrew in the last 50 years. This is not theoretical left wing propaganda, you did overthrow them. Exactly YOU ! Just kidding, but you always inherit the sins of your parents. The world police has to realize that democracys do not only have to maintain their own democracy but spread it.
I am more worried about the U.S. that I am about china... I think china will change a great bit in the right direction in the next years to come while I am not sure if the U.S.A. is willing to be just another country in this wide world. Well if you ever come down from your horse, we welcome you in our ranks.
EDIT : How can you be against gay marriage and abortion. Please dont be, this hurts your image su much.
And : Religion has nothing to do with politics. Try to keep it out of it. God bless America. Well, tell god to go and bless your family. The country as a whole is not religious, you are. Or not.b
Pretty much the general swedish view as well if I dare say so.. However I do not agree with you about the European standard. Look at Italy = crazy horny old man who makes his own laws, and never steps down from power - pretty much a dictator. Also owner of the television companies if I remember correctly;
France, Hungary, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Germany = pretty extreme racism;
Greece just had an economical breakdown due to retarded politicians.
Don't get me started about eastern europe in general. Let's just say that many of the countries there still live in the 40s. If you tell them Hitler is dead, they'll probably faint.
Pretty recently Sweden got the right wing party in power, and I think like 4 ministers have been kicked out so far because they've been doing illegal stuff, and they just suck for the country overall. Also we've gotten the racist party in 5% - For you who didn't know you get the same percent of people in parliament as you had votes, so the'll be quite important, as there are two big blocks, and the nazis who can basically decide which option they like the best (however they probably wont ever be able to make any own proposals). I think the most left wing party left it's block though, possibly to negate the effects of the racists.. lol
America's politics is shit, even the americans know that, but Europe is going down hill as well. The worst country is probably Italy though.
Imho a working, democratic socialism would be the best for the world. The thing people always bring up is Soviet Russia, or Batshit Crazy Modern Time China, but none of those countries actually had socialism.
Does everyone have the same amount of power, ie democracy in those countries? No, far from it. kkthxbb.
Fascist countries call themselves socialistic, and all of a sudden it's bad to think of others, work together, have a free healthcare system, free college and share things in general (the values of socialism, for those of you who didn't know). Wow...
P.S. Religion is made to make people stupid and obedient.. and it's worked quite well so far. Is there anywhere in any major religious book where it says you should think for yourself? No, it's strongly discouraged.
|
On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)).
Why not? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on this one.
|
this is such a good watch!
I am late for work because of it but thanks!
|
On November 07 2010 07:19 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). Why not? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on this one.
'Cause he has alot of money, and doesn't want to pay taxes.
If I have money, and you die, I still have money.. *cough* war in Iraq *cough*
Capitalism is the new fascism 
|
On November 07 2010 07:07 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 07:00 Krigwin wrote:On November 07 2010 05:54 kzn wrote:On November 07 2010 05:31 Krigwin wrote:On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
There is no intrinsic difference between a Ferrari and healthcare (and its not "a life", since everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). ...wat. You cannot be serious. Alright that's it, I'm out of here. About which part? Are you seriously trying to compare life-saving proper medical care that every first-world country has with a completely inessential luxury item whose purpose and primary function can be replicated by any number of almost identical if not visually similar items? They're not even in remotely similar categories of... things. I'm not arguing either position in this debate, I'm just trying to grasp if that's seriously the analogy you're attempting to make. They are identical as far as matters for the argument that healthcare should be publicly provided.
If you actually think this there is something seriously wrong with you. And I don't mean "you're evil!" or "you're a bad person if you disagree with me" wrong, I mean mental disorder, not sufficient education, was raised in the forest by wolves type of seriously wrong, because your logic is bizarre and alien.
They are not even close to identical. A Ferrari is not a "utility gain", it's a type of goddamn car. I understand the comparison you're attempting to make, but the literal analogy you're actually making now does not work at all.
Here is a better analogy you should use: Everyone gains if they're given by the government a method of transport, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one. Except that analogy doesn't really work because we already do that, it's called public transportation. Your entire attempt at using an analogy has failed, which is unfortunate because the position that you're arguing (that the government should not provide universal healthcare) can be properly argued, just not when you use analogies that make the person making them look legally retarded. There's a reason why every single person responding to you has pointed out how stupid your analogy was. Just use a different one and move on.
On November 07 2010 07:19 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). Why not? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on this one.
Isn't it obvious? Because if you're too poor to afford medical care, you deserve to die. That's the American way, man. We're the most charitable country on Earth, haven't you been paying attention?
|
On November 07 2010 07:22 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 07:19 Ferrose wrote:On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). Why not? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on this one. Isn't it obvious? Because if you're too poor to afford medical care, you deserve to die. That's the American way, man. We're the most charitable country on Earth, haven't you been paying attention?
Well, I know that. But I want to give him a chance to give me a decent argument.
|
The U.S political system was set up poorly from the get go. I understand why it was set up the way it was, at the time it was set up. However, it adapts and changes at a turtle like pace. There wasnt enough power granted to the federal branch of government, because for some reason there is this eternal fear of the government "taking over". As a result, the lengthy process of literally everything that the government tries to implement leaves you far behind most developed western countries when it comes to social services. It takes you guys 40 years to pass a healthcare bill that is extremely watered down due to the rediculous amount of power the losing party has over policy, whereas in other countries these sorts of things take maybe a couple years to pan out.
On top of this, identifying yourself predominantly by "party" and not by political view is a poor way to get your government to really represent your views on what you want for your country. The majority of the U.S population stubbornly identifies as either republican or democrat, meaning these parties literally can do what they want, and still have that stubborn support. Heck, I guess it makes it easier for the commoner, you dont need to read or ask questions that way right?
You also have allowed corporations and lobby groups to have too much power and influence over everything your government wants to do. Notice anything that will effect money making for big corporations and industries either never gets done or takes a million years to emerge in some watered down half-ass form that still leaves the money makers pockets full. Health care wasnt passed until now because health care is a business in the U.S, not a neccessary service to its people. You gotta protect your own, unless it costs me money, instead of making more for myself seems to be the U.S way.
Ironically declaring a couple wars based on false pretences half way across the world to take oil reserves from a sandbox seems to be easy enough to do.
basically your system is a mess, your population is too impressionable, the media swings back and forth between the 2 parties, stubborn uneducated voters allow unrepresntative governmetns to continue to rule, and your rediculous clingyness to your original constitution is laughable. All you need to look at is the "right to bear arms" debate in your country. It was originally put in the constitution because a militia was a realistic possibility for defending your territory and freedom. There is no room for a militia anymore. Put your guns away and let the people hired to do the policing do the job. Instead stubborn uneducated fools seem to think it means theyre allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves from whatever they deem to be threatening. Your country has too many idiots in it for it to be respected by most other western countries. A lot of the burden falls on the shoulders of the redneck states, but unfortunately you only get 1 global identity, and the educated modern americans get the short end of the stick.
|
[B]On November 07 2010 07:11 Euronyme wrote:[/B
Pretty much the general swedish view as well if I dare say so.. However I do not agree with you about the European standard. Look at Italy = crazy horny old man who makes his own laws, and never steps down from power - pretty much a dictator. Also owner of the television companies if I remember correctly;
France, Hungary, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Germany = pretty extreme racism;
]Pretty recently Sweden got the right wing party in power, and I think like 4 ministers have been kicked out so far because they've been doing illegal stuff, and they just suck for the country overall. Also we've gotten the racist party in 5% - For you who didn't know you get the same percent of people in parliament as you had votes, so the'll be quite important, as there are two big blocks, and the nazis who can basically decide which option they like the best (however they probably wont ever be able to make any own proposals). I think the most left wing party left it's block though, possibly to negate the effects of the racists.. lol
America's politics is shit, even the americans know that, but Europe is going down hill as well. The worst country is probably Italy though.
the most right wing party in germany(in the last bundestagswahl all miscellaneous partys, including the npd didnt even break 4% together!) is more "to the left" then the republican party in the us(think around 40%). it really isnt compareable!
every country has and had some right people, which need to be represented(were still have a democracy). but that doesnt mean they have something to say, even if they do in the media
the last 2 guys which had some right "suggestions"(sarrazin fe) got tattered by the media and politics, that some people still agreed doesnt mean the majority did
|
On November 07 2010 07:43 Focuspants wrote:
Put your guns away and let the people hired to do the policing do the job.
But if guns are banned, the people who have guns (like law enforcement) will abuse that power!
That's probably what a lot of people would say. Outlawing guns is the worst thing that could ever happen, especially if you look at countries like Japan (yes I was being sarcastic in that last sentence).
|
Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 07:45 amaGAWD wrote:On November 07 2010 07:11 Euronyme wrote:[/B
Pretty much the general swedish view as well if I dare say so.. However I do not agree with you about the European standard. Look at Italy = crazy horny old man who makes his own laws, and never steps down from power - pretty much a dictator. Also owner of the television companies if I remember correctly;
France, Hungary, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Germany = pretty extreme racism;
]Pretty recently Sweden got the right wing party in power, and I think like 4 ministers have been kicked out so far because they've been doing illegal stuff, and they just suck for the country overall. Also we've gotten the racist party in 5% - For you who didn't know you get the same percent of people in parliament as you had votes, so the'll be quite important, as there are two big blocks, and the nazis who can basically decide which option they like the best (however they probably wont ever be able to make any own proposals). I think the most left wing party left it's block though, possibly to negate the effects of the racists.. lol
America's politics is shit, even the americans know that, but Europe is going down hill as well. The worst country is probably Italy though. the most right wing party in germany(in the last bundestagswahl all miscellaneous partys, including the npd didnt even break 4% together!) is more "to the left" then the republican party in the us(think around 40%). it really isnt compareable! every country has and had some right people, which need to be represented(were still have a democracy). but that doesnt mean they have something to say, even if they do in the media Show nested quote +
the last 2 guys which had some right "suggestions"(sarrazin fe) got tattered by the media and politics, that some people still agreed doesnt mean the majority did
Yeah sure the extremist.. when I talked about nazis in Sweden, I'm talking about people who says they want to reduce the immigration. It's not about what they actually say, it's about how they think. People of different colour than ours is worth less.
From what I've heard even Angela Merkel said something in those lines. I exaggerated a bit, just 'cause I didn't want to drag on too long about different grades of racism, as hungary is as bad as it can get, so my apologies.[b]
|
On November 07 2010 07:19 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 04:59 kzn wrote:
everyone is guaranteed lifesaving medical care in the US already (which they shouldn't be)). Why not? I'm curious to hear your reasoning on this one.
In all honesty, I'm not the one who has to establish a "why not". My answer is that nobody has yet been able to provide a decent reason why they should have the authority to force me to spend money that I worked for on something that they've picked.
On November 07 2010 07:22 Krigwin wrote:
If you actually think this there is something seriously wrong with you. And I don't mean "you're evil!" or "you're a bad person if you disagree with me" wrong, I mean mental disorder, not sufficient education, was raised in the forest by wolves type of seriously wrong, because your logic is bizarre and alien.
They are not even close to identical. A Ferrari is not a "utility gain", it's a type of goddamn car. I understand the comparison you're attempting to make, but the literal analogy you're actually making now does not work at all.
That is a utility gain. Nothing you've said makes it at all different from healthcare in terms of anything but scale.
If everyone pools their money and buys healthcare for everyone, everyone benefits. If everyone pools their money and buys Ferraris for everyone, everyone benefits.
Thus, "everyone benefits" is not sufficient as a reason to have universal healthcare.
Here is a better analogy you should use: Everyone gains if they're given by the government a method of transport, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one. Except that analogy doesn't really work because we already do that, it's called public transportation.
And it is consistently a massive failure too.
There's a reason why every single person responding to you has pointed out how stupid your analogy was.
Yes, and it is because they dont understand the scope of the analogy, just as you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9592/1266900869189.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/eJOPj.gif)
