|
At this point I'm hoping that Obama wins. If the choice is between a statist theocrat and a socialist, I'll take the socialist because at least I know that capitalism and freedom won't be taking the blame when the next 4 years are terrible for the US and the right won't turn into a bunch of cheerleaders.
I'm supporting Gary Johnson despite his association with the Libertarian Party as well as the fact that he won't win. He is a true supporter of capitalism, is against the drug war and has sane views on abortion and gay marraige which are why he didn't have a chance at the nomination but they make him one of the rare people on the federal level who are actually likeable and not just worth a defensive vote. He's somewhat weak on his foreign policy but I believe that he's rational enough to be open to seeing Iran as a threat and taking action.
|
On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
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. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing.
On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world.
I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism.
|
On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
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.
Why do you call liberalisim bad (I'm assuming you mean it in the classical sense) then proceed to describe the results of crony "capitalism" which is the opposite of classical liberalism?
Also, I'm Canadian and I'm completely against socialized health care. The only reason that so many Canadians believe in it is because it is hammered into their heads during school that it is something that is good and that we should be proud of it.
|
On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
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. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism.
How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state.
Not even crony.
|
On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
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. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony.
Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things.
|
On January 05 2012 06:53 Jibba wrote:No, I really don't think Santorum, Gingrich and possibly even Paul (although this might be more due to funding and campaign structure than anything else, since he won't fold to normal GOP pressures like McCain did) can get wide enough appeal. I edited this into one of my previous posts: Show nested quote +Here's the thing, when you say "Would you rather have a Republican or Obama?", 45%+ will choose Republican right now. Once you start naming specific Republicans, that number begins to shrink. Of the people who say "anyone but Obama", I guarantee you they'll be second guessing that thinking if it's between Bachmann or Obama.
You think Paul has a better shot than either Santorum or Gingrich? I find that surprising. Also don't forget that Obama is having problems with his own base too as there are a lot of people that feel he has tried to compromise too much and has ended up caving too many times.
When you name Republicans against Obama their numbers shrink but we don't know if that means anything before a candidate has been chosen. There are probably quite a few people that would vote for any Republican vs Obama but they will only say that they support "their" Republican while we're still in the primary process.
The Republican field seems pretty splintered at the moment, but once they choose a candidate I think they will come together a lot stronger than the Democrats. In general I believe Republicans are a lot better at playing the politics game, which is why they can win elections despite the fact that people identify with liberal values more often. Right wingers never criticize one of their own when it counts. Compare that to Obama who is constantly taking heat from the left, NDAA being the most recent example.
|
On January 05 2012 07:16 OsoVega wrote:
I'm supporting Gary Johnson despite his association with the Libertarian Party as well as the fact that he won't win.
I may cast a vote for him as well since I have no reason to support the "lesser of two evils" in a jurisdiction that won't even be remotely competitive (DC).
Why "despite his association with the LP" out of curiosity?
|
On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:[quote] 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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all.
Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die.
(Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.)
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
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. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things.
The main issue with liberitarian views on capitalism (entirely free market, no regulation, etc.) is that there is no safety net. If it is attempted and fails, the results are catastrophic. Other systems that can be tried have some level of safety margins built into the system, which is appealing.
|
On January 05 2012 07:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 06:53 Jibba wrote:No, I really don't think Santorum, Gingrich and possibly even Paul (although this might be more due to funding and campaign structure than anything else, since he won't fold to normal GOP pressures like McCain did) can get wide enough appeal. I edited this into one of my previous posts: Here's the thing, when you say "Would you rather have a Republican or Obama?", 45%+ will choose Republican right now. Once you start naming specific Republicans, that number begins to shrink. Of the people who say "anyone but Obama", I guarantee you they'll be second guessing that thinking if it's between Bachmann or Obama. You think Paul has a better shot than either Santorum or Gingrich? I find that surprising. Also don't forget that Obama is having problems with his own base too as there are a lot of people that feel he has tried to compromise too much and has ended up caving too many times. When you name Republicans against Obama their numbers shrink but we don't know if that means anything before a candidate has been chosen. There are probably quite a few people that would vote for any Republican vs Obama but they will only say that they support "their" Republican while we're still in the primary process. The Republican field seems pretty splintered at the moment, but once they choose a candidate I think they will come together a lot stronger than the Democrats. In general I believe Republicans are a lot better at playing the politics game, which is why they can win elections despite the fact that people identify with liberal values more often. Right wingers never criticize one of their own when it counts. Compare that to Obama who is constantly taking heat from the left, NDAA being the most recent example.
I think you're right that the Republicans will be stronger but for the opposite reasons. The Republicans really should have this election in the bag considering how weak and unpopular Obama is right now as nearly everyone can see what a dismal job he has done. The problem is that the Republicans are very good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.)
You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments?
But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this.
|
On January 05 2012 05:26 ohmkerg wrote:
These biases some of you people have about people in poverty is a bit disturbing. Also assuming someone bought lottery tickets and other bullshit means they deserve to have their houses burn down? Some of you need to learn a little empathy.
Empathy doesn't matter if people don't have accountability. What happens when no one can be held accountable for their actions?
If that same dude paid for his fire service, and his house burnt down just before the Fire Dep got there, then I'd feel empathy. If his dumb ass decided not to opt in to the fire service because he thinks he could play on the moral insecurities of others and abuse the system, fuck him, and it's his fault the house burnt down. We shouldn't foot the bill for his irresponsibilities.
|
On January 05 2012 07:59 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
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. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. The main issue with liberitarian views on capitalism (entirely free market, no regulation, etc.) is that there is no safety net. If it is attempted and fails, the results are catastrophic. Other systems that can be tried have some level of safety margins built into the system, which is appealing.
Free markets and no regulation aren't a libertarian view of capitalism, they are simply a libertarian view. It is also a capitalist view. Free markets and no regulation is the only form of capitalism. When people call mixed markets or crony capitalism capitalism, they are wrong.
It seems you're not using the word 'safety net' as it is usually meant. It's usually meant on a personal level where the government will support anyone who falls below a certain level of wealth to ensure that people at least won't be starving or living in complete poverty. In a capitalism society, there would be far less people in need of this kind of safety net because of the overall prosperity that capitalism brings about. People who really couldn't produce enough wealth to sustain themselves would have to rely on private charity which is fine. If people are willing to vote for a safety net, why, in a capitalist society, wouldn't they be willing to provide that safety net voluntarily?
As for mixed markets having safety features, built into them, it is those safety features which cause them to fail. Things like anti-trust laws, bailouts, stimulus, government insurance of bank accounts, etc. These are the cause of the failures of the mixed market. Any appeal these might have is due to being uninformed or irrational. The reason politicians and intellectuals support these things is because it allocates so much power to them.
|
On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]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?
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this.
The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed.
In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity.
Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]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?
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this.
That's hardly a fair rebuttal as he didn't even say that. His argument is that it's your personal responsibility to choose whether you want fire protection or not. If you choose not to, it's on you when something goes wrong.
Now I think it's a bad system because when people decide the risk isn't worth the cost, then something does happen, they decide that now they want to pay and have the services. Well, you can't have it both ways. If a rural fire dept only gets income when there is a fire then they won't have the consistent cash flow to run day to day operations. It's also causes a moral outrage since the majority of people think it's wrong to let someones house burn down, especially when the firefighters are usually already there to protect neighboring houses.
Of course, one issue of mandatory payment(through taxes or insurance) is that you're now subsidizing the riskier members of the group with the less risky. I pay the same amount of taxes as the guy down the road who leaves fire hazards laying around while I do my diligence to cut back bushes/trees and clean up debris. It's similar to universal healthcare. The healthy members of society who exercise and don't eat like crap have to pay for the less healthy members who don't work to keep themselves out of the hospital.
|
On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]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?
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this.
I'd like to hear this laundry list. The fact that most developed countries don't use them is not an argument. The fact that fire spreads is also not an argument because the people who have opted in would be entitled to have their homes protected even if it's not directly their house burning. That would simply be a matter of drawing up the right contract.
Also, I don't feel that people should die if they aren't productive enough to survive. I think that they should do everything they can to increase their productiveness or ask for private charity.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture.
So we should, as a society, hope that enough people will be kind hearted to those who can't afford health care so that they don't suffer?
I never said someone who spends money on meth or heroine deserves health care, I don't know how you leapt to the exact opposite logical end of the spectrum. What a weird leap. I'd re-write the entire health care system myself, first thing to go would be malpractice lawsuits: get rid of those and everything gets WAY cheaper. Malpractice would be a criminal offense, not a civil one, and people would take out private insurance for proceedures. One of the deals with my system is that everyone has the option to buy cheap health care, and have it provided for them if they can't afford it, but if they can afford it and choose not to, hospitals aren't obligated to help.
As for why that doesn't work with fire departments, it's pretty simple: externalities.
|
On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture.
If there is already a problem where people can't afford health care as it is, what makes you think that taking more away from them will make it any easier to afford? It's not like there is a group of doctors in every city saying, "if only people didn't have Medicare and Medicaid, then I could treat them for free!"
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture. If there is already a problem where people can't afford health care as it is, what makes you think that taking more away from them will make it any easier to afford? It's not like there is a group of doctors in every city saying, "if only people didn't have Medicare and Medicaid, then I could treat them for free!"
I might disagree that a pure free market would make things better, but you clearly don't even understand the concept.
edit; The argument is that healthcare would cost less if you didn't have all the government regulation in the insurance and health industries.
|
On January 05 2012 08:25 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture.
So we should, as a society, hope that enough people will be kind hearted to those who can't afford health care so that they don't suffer?I never said someone who spends money on meth or heroine deserves health care, I don't know how you leapt to the exact opposite logical end of the spectrum. What a weird leap. I'd re-write the entire health care system myself, first thing to go would be malpractice lawsuits: get rid of those and everything gets WAY cheaper. Malpractice would be a criminal offense, not a civil one, and people would take out private insurance for proceedures. One of the deals with my system is that everyone has the option to buy cheap health care, and have it provided for them if they can't afford it, but if they can afford it and choose not to, hospitals aren't obligated to help. As for why that doesn't work with fire departments, it's pretty simple: externalities.
Yes along with the fact that when you don't socialize or subsidize health care, it is much more efficient and most people would actually be able to afford it. If they do suffer, that is unfortunate but we shouldn't start stealing from people as a response.
As for the externalities of fire, that is simply a matter of drawing up the right contract which will protect you even if it's not your property that is directly on fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
