|
On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US.
You totally ignored what I said . I said that Paul's stand on free healthcare is that the state should not help individuals . In every society it is the individual's responsibility to help the other in need of help or assistance . You can't create a society where people are thought to be divided in a society , but you put a higher power over them to regulate their behavior in order that the weak must be helped . That is preposterous , humans are social creatures hence they must help each other to feel good . Putting a higher power such as the state to regulate something as intimate as health care tells me that they give people to oportunity to not give a f*ck about each other because hey , they have the right to help , either if they are c*nts or not , or so I see it .
And yes , assholes who are poor ( because of their own actions , not because of bad luck - and I know you can become homeless even if you are hardworking , this happens in extreme cases of bad luck of some individuals - you know find the "right" friends , the right "husband/wife" and you're set to that path ) who contribute with nothing to society should not get free help . People taking help for granted just by existing , either if you are good or bad , are not very lucid . ===> Take this example : You take out your own time , your own resources to help someone who , you know after you helped him be active again , he will go again doing nothing positive to society => you promote poor behavior at the cost of your own time and money - does it makes any sense at all ??????
|
On January 05 2012 03:26 Mohdoo wrote:
I really wish there was a viable method of online voting. Its such a shame that such a low % of the population votes. It being online would certainly help that a lot.
Maybe someday, but the problem is that not everyone has access to the Internet. Most people without internet access are poor and uneducated, and those tend to vote republican - so it would bias the results =D.
Kind of just kidding, but not really.
|
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics.
|
On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself.
Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom.
When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol.
|
On January 05 2012 03:26 Mohdoo wrote:
I really wish there was a viable method of online voting. Its such a shame that such a low % of the population votes. It being online would certainly help that a lot.
In that case it would be great , but there is a serious issue at hand here , if you could make voting online possible it means you make internet anonymity impossible , which would anger like .... almost the whole internet . While you can see good reason for removing anonymity , the only way of installing such a thing is creating a higher structure in power of the internet who can regulate it , and even if it's started with good intent , we can see that everyone who is power tends to become a huge C*nt , no1 holding exception from this rule. Give individuals power = > they will inevitably abuse it.
|
|
|
On January 05 2012 03:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:26 Mohdoo wrote:
I really wish there was a viable method of online voting. Its such a shame that such a low % of the population votes. It being online would certainly help that a lot. Maybe someday, but the problem is that not everyone has access to the Internet. Most people without internet access are poor and uneducated, and those tend to vote republican - so it would bias the results =D. Kind of just kidding, but not really.
It's not like you can't have an option to do it online or at the poll. It'll probably never happen though because then the youth vote might actually matter.
|
On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics.
As opposed to what exactly?
The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse.
On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol.
Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
|
On January 05 2012 03:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:26 Mohdoo wrote:
I really wish there was a viable method of online voting. Its such a shame that such a low % of the population votes. It being online would certainly help that a lot. Maybe someday, but the problem is that not everyone has access to the Internet. Most people without internet access are poor and uneducated, and those tend to vote republican - so it would bias the results =D. Kind of just kidding, but not really.
The problem would be how legitimacy of any results. Can you imagine an election getting rigged because of a hackers boredom? The infrastructure they would need to implement such a thing would be too much trouble at the moment.
The poor vote republican? the poor stay on with the D's for the free stuff. Nothing like an Access card from my taxes to pay for a poor persons redbull at a gas station...
|
On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse.
The US in many was is just as socialized as the countries you state above. Except the US socializes private risk (ie. Solyndra) and war, instead of social programs.
How the US operates though is irrelevant with regard to the point that the social programs the European socialized states are running are running them into the ground. At no point was the US proposed to be a better model, in fact the discussion stemmed from a stance that Ron Paul has that the state should play no part on this types of policies and "social" projects, indicating a dissatisfaction with the US model itself. At that point the European socialized model was offered as a model that was superior than the one Ron Paul advocates.
|
On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse.
Public debt by country
external debt
the per capita is an interesting figure
|
On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse.
Exactly right. The big government, socialist-type spending habit of the West, including the United States, is a big problem.
|
On January 05 2012 03:28 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Putting a higher power such as the state to regulate something as intimate as health care tells me that they give people to oportunity to not give a f*ck about each other because hey , they have the right to help , either if they are c*nts or not , or so I see it .
Are you trying to suggest that people would help each other if they didn't get government help? Because if you are, a simple look can tell you it's not the case.
I'd be dead now if my mom hadn't gotten me through a battery of tests because I blacked out twice when I was little. Most doctors couldn't see anything, but a cardiologist ended up finding a problem with my heart which would most likely have killed me if it hadn't been found out so early.
She couldn't have afforded tens of thousands to get me to see doctors on a whim that something might be wrong even though doctors couldn't find anything. Nobody would have handed her thousands of dollars. Hell, I'm lucky I didn't need a heart transplant - especially not under your utopia... What are the odds that people would manage to put together half a million dollars for one kid with a heart problem. This is especially true in your society because instead of having a governing body administrating it, the population would get bombarded with people begging for money because they can't afford surgery or treatment.
Not only people are fundamentally selfish and would count on others to do it, the sheer number of people in need would make it impossible to help everyone. Do you think the average American would be ready and willing to give away $7000 to sick people? Plus, the little people WOULD give away would be to cutey children. Old people needing a hip replacement would be fucked.
Stop for one minute and think about it, it's simple. The world doesn't run on ponies and rainbows. People are selfish and pretending that we can fix it won't change that.
On January 05 2012 03:37 lvent wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:29 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 03:26 Mohdoo wrote:
I really wish there was a viable method of online voting. Its such a shame that such a low % of the population votes. It being online would certainly help that a lot. Maybe someday, but the problem is that not everyone has access to the Internet. Most people without internet access are poor and uneducated, and those tend to vote republican - so it would bias the results =D. Kind of just kidding, but not really. The poor vote republican? the poor stay on with the D's for the free stuff. Nothing like an Access card from my taxes to pay for a poor persons redbull at a gas station...
Are you crazy 
Fox News convinced the hillbillies to vote against their interests.
|
On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
The US does not operate in any manner on a private healthcare equivalent. All payments, payouts and services are regulated and modeled by the government in the form of insurance standards, subsidies, regulations, etc. The only portions that are private are the medical practices themselves, which must operate totally in the above mentioned model.
This causes huge distortions in prices, demand and services offered.
|
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture.
|
On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that.
US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas.
|
But do poor people *really* deserve health care? C'mon.
I guess it all depends on how you want to value/view the good of your country. Bottom line GDP, or quality of life for your citizens?
|
On January 05 2012 03:45 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:28 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Putting a higher power such as the state to regulate something as intimate as health care tells me that they give people to oportunity to not give a f*ck about each other because hey , they have the right to help , either if they are c*nts or not , or so I see it . Are you trying to suggest that people would help each other if they didn't get government help? Because if you are, a simple look can tell you it's not the case. I'd be dead now if my mom hadn't gotten me through a battery of tests because I blacked out twice when I was little. Most doctors couldn't see anything, but a cardiologist ended up finding a problem with my heart which would most likely have killed me if it hadn't been found out so early. She couldn't have afforded tens of thousands to get me to see doctors on a whim that something might be wrong even though doctors couldn't find anything. Nobody would have handed her thousands of dollars. Hell, I'm lucky I didn't need a heart transplant - especially not under your utopia... What are the odds that people would manage to put together half a million dollars for one kid with a heart problem. This is especially true in your society because instead of having a governing body administrating it, the population would get bombarded with people begging for money because they can't afford surgery or treatment. Not only people are fundamentally selfish and would count on others to do it, the sheer number of people in need would make it impossible to help everyone. Do you think the average American would be ready and willing to give away $7000 to sick people? Plus, the little people WOULD give away would be to cutey children. Old people needing a hip replacement would be fucked. Stop for one minute and think about it, it's simple. The world doesn't run on ponies and rainbows. People are selfish and pretending that we can fix it won't change that.
You got extreemly lucky , I'm sincerely happy that shit didn't go wrong for you , but you can't really say that the universe is a fair place from the individual point of view . It my paradigm obviously a lot of people would be left behind , but overall I think it would be better , because coercing a majority to pay out of their own pockets for healthcare is the same as what I say , just my model would make people feel more responsible and better about themselves if they contribute directly and they see who they have helped . Yes people are selfish and some of the paranoid thinking they can be attacked by other for you know , personal interest and material gain , but that is not possible really , people's selfishness is irrelevant I believe because if you steal from another and you've been spotted by society you would be instantly discarded from that society and have a permanent black mark on your head so to say . Selfishness is natural , but it's unsustainable for society so I believe it's irrelevant. I'm basically a libertarian anarchist , and I know for sure that anarchy would result in complete chaos in our society today , because people are not educated to live in a free society , well at least a truly free society , they are thought to think in specific patterns with the idea that they are protected by a higher power , say what you say about the state that it should not be involved with religion , but by it's definition that it is a higher power who looks after you ... well ... It kind resembles the big guy from the sky isn't it ? SHIT WOULD GO WRONG IN A FREE SOCIETY , but , the road you're following with healtcare and more involvement of the government in the life of the individual inevitably leads to tyranny , because even tho it's started with good intention , giving people power makes them c*nts , people abuse power for some reason^^ . I believe it's way healthier to start on the premise that even tho human beings are selfish creatures , humans also are very social beings ( with about 1 mild sociopath in 100 , who tend to f*ck the society ) , and most importantly , very weak in the hands of high amount of power or responsability as they tend to abuse their powers.
I believe even tho the founding fathers of America were you know , hypocrites, they got this down , they wrote the Constitution with the purpose of restraining the government so it won't abuse it's powers , they knew what would happen , It's amazing imo that they knew things would degrade in such a manner so they set in place these things to not allow the people in power to go crazy , and there you have it , they're going crazier and crazier by the minute , with the most recent example being the passing of the NDAA, again, you can start this on good intentions but it is certainly the first step towards tyranny - because the Constitution is being ignored and trashed more and more. Now who is watching over the government if it goes in the wrong direction ? Obviously not the politicians , the people are responsible to repair the damage ...
+ Show Spoiler +All the things I write here are simply my perspective , my views on general things , I don't take anything for granted of what I've written , but in the present this is how I feel about things , and this is what seems reasonable to me , so if you find to heavily disagree with me, don't worry , we're not in a e-dick competition , the point of shit talking is anyways evolving ideas...
|
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 02:43 AcuWill wrote:On January 05 2012 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 05 2012 01:48 bOneSeven wrote:On January 05 2012 01:15 cameler wrote:
Look, you all may not agree with Ron Paul's positions on many issues, but at least give the man credit for expressing his views. Who can tell me what the heck Mitt Romney's position on health care in the United States is? Does he support Obamacare?
Ron Paul, in one of those televised debates, CLEARLY said that if you do not pay for health insurance and you show up at the hospital door without insurance with a blown open skull, TOUGH LUCK, you should have thought of that earlier!
I don't agree with the man, but I was amazed that someone dared express themselves. Mitt Romney has flipflopped on the handling of health care so many times its not even funny.
Hes like the dude that licks his finger to check where the wind is blowing from before he makes a statement. Always moldable to whoever pays him the big bucks.
I read the news from the US, and I still cannot get a grasp of what is at the core of Mitt Romney's beliefs.
Ron Paul said that the state should not have the power to make doctors help people without insurance , make it clear , it's not about being cruel or anything , he as a doctor worked a lot of times for free ( if pacients did not have the money and were in extreme cases ) . So what he is saying that in this case the government is to big , it shouldn't tell the doctors what to do , doctors should help people in extreme conditions because of their own choice and you know , moral principles , but it should not be dictated by the state . This is how I understood it, and how I see it from his own record as a doctor . After seeing so many comedians support Ron Paul , I think it's pretty clear that he is a really good option . I mean come on , Jim Norton who is a + Show Spoiler +"fuck me I'm a fucking disguisting fat guy who doesn't give a fuck about anything , and I'm totally saying truthers are fucking scum idiots" and etc etc supports Ron Paul , COME ON SON! He is the most reasonable choice , if you didn't already rationalized some form of utilitarianism and you know a form of economical and social stability based on the premises that human beings are not quite good and really aggressive on their own . Ron Paul's message is , individual freedom is sacred , fake economy will literally destroy this nation ( this is true , you can't go on hyperinflation like this because it inevitably leads to a form of extreme measure of government sooner or later because people panic and resort to extremes ) , and you presence overseas , even tho it sincerely stabilizes regions , the MOMENT you leave that place you create a power vacuum and civil war/unrest is almost inevitable , this happened right now in Iraq and it's all f*cked up right there now .. Also having troops overseas also means you gotta pay big bucks from the citizens pockets , as the people get poorer and need to pay higher taxes to support the wars , occupation and etc , the public gets angry , so it's an unsustainable system . Supporting other than Ron Paul right now simply means that you support people who got bought and sold multiple times , Dr Paul has never been bribed successfully . Not supporting Ron Paul means that you support , at the very least , the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents overseas , support peaceful people being locked in cages with horrible people because they used or carried various "god"-made plants ---- Whatever the rationalization of their action you form for yourself , you gotta see that it is MORALY wrong , what happens . + Show Spoiler +Every idea you support , you gotta inspect it with your intuition and your reason , your reality , you are perhaps wrong but at least you didn't borrow other's people WRONG point of view on things . . We derailed from morality a long time ago , and maybe morality won't save our society right now but it would be a good start , probably followed by a lot of chaos , but with a positive end result ... + Show Spoiler +H. G. Wells said it best: History is a race between education and catastrophe ---- We shall see who is the winner of this contest in our life time I suspect , and I believe going against Ron Paul is going towards the road of catastrophe Sure, doctors from private clinics / hospitals are well known for helping the poors. Just like that, because, you know, it's their free choice and they are nice. Free choice my ass. Ron Paul position is very very simple: if you don't have enough to pay your healthcare, you fucking die if you get ill or injured, period. That means that every single poor person getting a cancer, AIDS, or just even breaking badly his arm or whatever can die and that's it. Nobody cares. The virtue of egoism, you know? The hateful war against every form of solidarity, of social justice or anything like that. Just to make it clear, in France and Germany we have an excellent healthcare, and, guess what? It didn't start any war / terrorist attack / ruined everybody / led us to totalitarianism. You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. Not to derail this, but since when has healthcare been an inalienable right, something that one "deserves" simply for existing? The last I checked, healthcare, is like any other product or service, requiring the input and capital of all types from others. And I find it it interesting that you use France and Germany as examples of "success" of free healthcare and not the host of free healthcare states in tremendous trouble. France is already bailing out banks to tunes of major percentage of GDP, and Germany has had continual standard of living decreases for well over a decade. (I am not saying the US is any better fiscally, just that your examples are totally flawed.) And then you mention some rhetoric regarding social justice, etc. What about individual liberty, the right to succeed and keep success. What of personal responsibility instead of socializing it? What of the right of each individual as an individual, not a cog in some "collective" machine? You can be against social-democracy, but saying it doesn't work or it leads to disasters is just wrong, since most of Western Europe is solidly social democrat and is in much better shape in most aspect than the US. What? What what? Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable. Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy? Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better: As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?Apparently that applies also to human life. Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business. Show nested quote +
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas.
Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do.
Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ?
|
On January 05 2012 04:03 Haemonculus wrote:
But do poor people *really* deserve health care? C'mon.
I guess it all depends on how you want to value/view the good of your country. Bottom line GDP, or quality of life for your citizens?
Well do poor people deserve phone service? phone service can save lives too...
If you let the free market operate, MORE people will actually have access to a higher quality service. Only the poorest of the poor in the US don't have phone service. If the free market was allowed to operate, and healthcare is indeed more important than phone service, than there would be more people with SOME sort of healthcare than there are people with phone service.
The government doesn't go around giving everyone phone cards, or quarters so that they could make emergency calls just in case, and yet somehow not being able to make a phone call is almost never an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
