Yeah I have to admit Americans are right

[Grumpy Cat]

I just went to the emergency room. Holy crap so much bureaucracy to get two stitches! It was unreal.

Yeah, I'm glad it's free, but damn next time I cut myself I'm just going to to to the pet store and get the antibiotics and thread to do the damn stitches myself. That's ironically what an American friend of mine does because he doesn't want to pay for it. :coffee:

[Loki]

The healthcare just sucks there, I guess. Here in England the NHS service is very good in my experience. And TOTALLY FREE. Screw capitalism, free essential healthcare for all is a RIGHT in the civilized world, you shouldn't have to pay for it. :coffee:

[Sol Invictus]

Lots of room for improvement for healthcare here for sure. AD we'll just have to double up on our smoking in the name of improving the system.

[Grumpy Cat]

The healthcare just sucks there, I guess. Here in England the NHS service is very good in my experience. And TOTALLY FREE. Screw capitalism, free essential healthcare for all is a RIGHT in the civilized world, you shouldn't have to pay for it. :coffee:

It doesn't suck completely. Not in every province anyways. But the province I live in has made so many changes, thinking for the better, but it's worse.

I swear, health care here is so inefficient, both patient care wise and cost wise. Like, do you really need to send me to three triage nurses? No. Just one, it'll get me in and out faster and you only have to pay one nurse. That's how it used to be.

Maybe this three triage nurses is part of Stephen Harper's economic action plan, to bring down unemployment to make Canada look good... kind of like how the city I live in seems to have this obsesson with roundabouts - there have been five built in the last month. No point to it but to give construction workers work.

Yeah and in Canada health care is totally free. As it should be. And for real emergencies or sickness it's excellent... just small things like needing a couple of stitches or a broken bone is when it sucks.

The big reason for that, though, is that people go to the emergency room for things that can be treated at a clinic, like the flu or something like that. You should only go to the ER if you're broken or bleeding... and people have been told that how many times?

[Grumpy Cat]

Oh yeah another piece of hilarity. My forms say my native language is French, they told me to wait till the radioed in a French-speaking nurse. I'M SPEAKING ENGLISH TO YOU!

Just stitch up my damn hand and call it a day.

Sorry I'm just bitter about wasting 5 hours of my day off. :mad:

[Tony]

I fear healthcare is on of that stuff on wich we'll always think differently and a problem that won't be solved ever , both the public and private way sucks.
The public is good because is somewhat free but is do damned inefficient jeez :rolleyes2: you eventually have to exploit it by find a friendly doctor , learn how to avoid to pay the visits , falsely state about you incomes and stuff like these...
on the other side the private system is too expensive and sometimes in order to save on costs they screw you up (I don't knot wether is correct but I like this verb :p) for example they use multiple times the same tools :rolleyes: and try to operate you even you really don't need to :mad:
I know a lot of stories...:coffee:

[YggsVinr]

Part of the reason health care is in the situation it is in Canada is because Canada has the tendency to punish the Liberals by voting Conservative every so often. By the time the Liberals fix the mess made of the health care and education systems by the Conservatives, the population decides to "punish" them again. The Conservatives are forever hounding a more American health care system, and as such seem hell-bent on sabatoging what would otherwise be a great health care system. The Liberals aren't exactly angels, but I prefer them to the disaster party that is the Conservative party. For the Americans who think their system is better and criticise the Canadian system...the only reason our system seems to go bonkers every few years is because of the Conservative attempts to americanise it. I would take the Canadian or EU health care systems any day of the week.

[Cato]

The healthcare just sucks there, I guess. Here in England the NHS service is very good in my experience. And TOTALLY FREE. Screw capitalism, free essential healthcare for all is a RIGHT in the civilized world, you shouldn't have to pay for it. :coffee:

But who foots the bill so others can get free health care? Guess how much in Social Security is taken out of my paycheck so that old farts and deadbeats can get free healthcare? Quite a fair amount, and I'm no rich man.

If Social Security wasn't taken out of my pay every two weeks, well, I'd be able to afford a modest health care plan of my own. :grumpy: Fuck this free nonsense, you have to pay for something if you want it badly enough.

[Oinakos Growion]

Social security/Healthcare is one of the things I "gladly" pay for in the form of taxes. I don't mind being taxed for that because I know that if I ever need it it's going to be there, with no limitations. I know that whatever I need I'll get it (even if they have to buy a new machine to treat me costing much more than all my previous contributions, without a blink). I consider this money going to tax as being better used than paying a private insurance, because that'd be more expensive and I'd never benefit from a so comprehensive cover (in the public system over here you never pay the full amount; your employer and the government chip in for you too - you actually always get more than you pay for, even if others sort of "abuse" the system - oh well!).
Furthermore, that's the kind of system that always works more or less ok since it's very much followed and scrutinised by external institutions, etc. Nobody would dare to steal (much) money from the social security/healthcare system, so that's good too.
Sure, there's many problems with it, but when I go abroad and compare... hell... I stop complaining :D
It really gives you peace of mind knowing that if you have a problem you just take yourself to whatever medical centre and you'll be done. Period. Nationwide. No questions asked. I really couldn't live in the American system (Ireland is pretty similar and I had some upsetting times there regarding this issue).

Now, being taxed in order to refinance banks and stuff... That sort of thing is the real issue, not the human right to be cured if you are sick or "fixed" if have an accident.

For a nation to work we all have to put things together, establish a community. We all have to chip in for some things and organise ourselves. In my view - and in the view of all my compatriots I'd dare to say - free public healthcare is one of the top priorities. I guess it's more or less the same feeling for most of Europe.


Fuck this free nonsense, you have to pay for something if you want it badly enough.
When one is on his/her bed with a terminal illness that wasn't covered in the insurance because one didn't even know it existed and one doesn't have more money for any more treatments... then one wishes one had paid a little bit more tax even if it ever indirectly paid for some old lady twisting her ankle every now and then...

[Cato]

Social security/Healthcare is one of the things I "gladly" pay for in the form of taxes. I don't mind being taxed for that because I know that if I ever need it it's going to be there, with no limitations. I know that whatever I need I'll have it (even if they have to buy a new machine to treat me costing much more than all my previous contributions, without a blink). I consider this tax as being better employed than paying a private insurance, because that'd be more expensive and would never cover me that comprehensively (in the public system over here you never pay the full amount; your employer and the actual government chip in for you too - you actually always get more than you pay for, even if others sort of "abuse" the system, oh well!).
Furthermore, that's the kind of system that always works more or less ok since it's very much followed and scrutinised by external institutions, etc. Nobody would dare to steal (much) money from the social security/healthcare system, so that's good too.
Sure, there's many problems with it, but when I go abroad and compare... hell... I stop complaining :D
It really gives you peace of mind knowing that if you have a problem you just take yourself to whatever medical centre and you'll be done. Period. Nationwide. No questions asked. I really couldn't live in the American system (Ireland is pretty similar and I had some upsetting times there regarding this issue).

Now, being taxed in order to refinance banks and stuff... That sort of thing is the real issue, not the human right to be cured if you are sick or "fixed" if have an accident.

For a nation to work we all have to put things together, establish a community. We all have to chip in for some things and organise ourselves. In my view - and in the view of all my compatriots I'd dare to say - free public healthcare is one of the top priorities. I guess it's more or less the same feeling for most of Europe.


When one is on his/her bed with a terminal illness that wasn't covered in the insurance because one didn't even know it existed and one doesn't have more money for any more treatments... then one wishes one had paid a little bit more tax even if it ever indirectly paid for some old lady twisting her ankle every now and then...

You've got no clue as to how social security in the U.S. works, then? :eek: What I pray for social security doesn't go to support me should I get an illness, but it goes to support old fossils and deadbeats on the dole in the here and now. If I'm lucky the social security program'll still exist when I'm of retirement age, but I'll be living off of the taxpayers in a generation or two. :coffee:

[Debaser11]

Part of the reason health care is in the situation it is in Canada is because Canada has the tendency to punish the Liberals by voting Conservative every so often. By the time the Liberals fix the mess made of the health care and education systems by the Conservatives, the population decides to "punish" them again. The Conservatives are forever hounding a more American health care system, and as such seem hell-bent on sabatoging what would otherwise be a great health care system. The Liberals aren't exactly angels, but I prefer them to the disaster party that is the Conservative party. For the Americans who think their system is better and criticise the Canadian system...the only reason our system seems to go bonkers every few years is because of the Conservative attempts to americanise it. I would take the Canadian or EU health care systems any day of the week.

You don't think the reason your healthcare is going down the shitter has anything to do with the fact that you people import tons of people that are a burden to the system? (As in, the net takers are increasing rather than net contributors.)

Did you ever stop to think such bondage to other individuals less reliable than themselves might have something to do with why some Americans don't go gently into the night when political measures are taken to ram Obamacare through? Did you ever stop to think that the more responsible people who exercise and eat healthy don't want be lumped in with the lowest common denominators who can't be bothered to exercise and who choose to splurge on fast food more routinely? Did you ever stop to think how some people don't like how such a system gives the government license to tax anything they deem unhealthy (from cigarettes to tanning salons to God knows what else) and how that leads to a society with less freedom? And if certain people are paying more into a system and others are taking disproportionate amounts of money from the system because of their lifestyle or for whatever reason, do you not see that as wealth redistribution? Do you blame people for not wanting to hand their money over in such an obvious manner?

Yeah, you'd take those Canadian and EU healthcare systems now, but demographics will reach a critical mass (especially in places like the U.K.). When a small enough group is subsidizing too large of a group's healthcare (something I always thought was most sensibly an individual's own responsibility), the whole thing will come down like the house of cards ponzee scheme that it is.

wbyPe_I3-6A

[Equinox]

There is no such thing as free healthcare.

This entire discussion is simply to justify one of two positions:

1. "Free" healthcare is good. I pay taxes, the government/my employer cops some of the bill and I am not at all too bothered by the bureaucracy, just as long as I get treated well.

2. "Free" healthcare is bad. It is for people unwilling or unable to prepare for hurdles they will face throughout their lives. It is also unrealistic and the part paid by my government/employer is unnecessary debt for the country as a whole. A self-regulating market for healthcare will bring down the price and give me the most efficient service.



I was recently reading about a Canadian case whereby the state-operated healthcare came to light when a citizen argued it was against his rights to quick treatment. The bureaucracy and inadequacy of the system was that bad.

I suppose that it really does not matter whether your country is inclined to option one or two, as long as they believe in one whole-heartedly.

Indecision breeds weakness.

[Cato]

TANSTAAFL.

Somebody's got to pay for your "right to health care." You bums who think that you're owed something free better look to the working slobs who foot the bill for your "free" trips to the doctor. Last I looked, no one pays for my trips to see my doctor (since, as a working American, I don't qualify for "free" health care, what a load). I pay for that shit out of my own wallet.

As this guy used to say as a part of his gimmick:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/gamesmith/assets_c/2010/06/milliondollarman-thumb-257x320-164103.jpg

Everybody's got a price; everybody's got to pay.

Well, unless you qualify to get someone else to pay for your trips for a few pills and a slap on the knees with the rubber hammer.

[Wulfhere]

Free healthcare is the mark of a modern, civilised state. It should, of course, only go to those whose ancestors created that state.

[Debaser11]

Free healthcare is the mark of a modern, civilised state. It should, of course, only go to those whose ancestors created that state.

Now that is much more sensible at least. It stands to reason that if you have people who are capable of creating a healthy state like Canada, then such a government-run system could work well provided that the culture and values of the country remain healthy. However, if Canada is going to keep accepting everybody (no matter their background) into its borders, then the weakness of this system is quickly exposed for what it is.

[Grumpy Cat]

Free healthcare is the mark of a modern, civilised state. It should, of course, only go to those whose ancestors created that state.

Yeah I agree. And Canada was built by natives and whites but I often see natives get turned away or die in the waiting room while a boatload of Tamils get free care on our dime.

But then again, by the ancestor creating the state then Anglo-canadiens shouldn't get free care because the French built Canada, English just got lucky. So it should be whoever pays taxes , regardless of background.

[Susi]

Yeah, I'm glad it's free, but damn next time I cut myself I'm just going to to to the pet store and get the antibiotics and thread to do the damn stitches myself. That's ironically what an American friend of mine does because he doesn't want to pay for it. :coffee:

It's not ironic, it's dangerous.... I'd rather wait and have a doctor look at me.


But who foots the bill so others can get free health care? Guess how much in Social Security is taken out of my paycheck so that old farts and deadbeats can get free healthcare? Quite a fair amount, and I'm no rich man.

Oh my god taxes oh god oh god oh god... I always wondered if someone is against government control/provision of services and taxation, then why even bother with conservatism -- just leap straight to anarchism, the ultimate freedom? :thumbs up


If Social Security wasn't taken out of my pay every two weeks, well, I'd be able to afford a modest health care plan of my own. :grumpy: Fuck this free nonsense, you have to pay for something if you want it badly enough.

The thing is, if everyone pays a bit from their paycheque (the same that you'd pay for a modest plan) then everyone can have healthcare. It works the same way privately, in a way. Your fees subsidise someone else's doctor visit ('free' under private insurance) and then in turn others subsidise yours... is it any better under a private system whose only motives are profit rather than well-being?


You don't think the reason your healthcare is going down the shitter has anything to do with the fact that you people import tons of people that are a burden to the system? (As in, the net takers are increasing rather than net contributors.)

The Canadian immigration system isn't an open tap. It's actually quite difficult to qualify for healthcare (I lived with someone from Mexico who'd been here four years and still didn't qualify for OHIP despite qualifying under the points system for entry... then again it isn't really even, my Russian friend got OHIP in like, 2 years).


Did you ever stop to think how some people don't like how such a system gives the government license to tax anything they deem unhealthy (from cigarettes to tanning salons to God knows what else) and how that leads to a society with less freedom?

http://www.glowleaf.net/anarchy.jpg? :D


Yeah, you'd take those Canadian and EU healthcare systems now, but demographics will reach a critical mass (especially in places like the U.K.). When a small enough group is subsidizing too large of a group's healthcare (something I always thought was most sensibly an individual's own responsibility), the whole thing will come down like the house of cards ponzee scheme that it is.

It isn't a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't promise ridiculous returns. Besides that taxation is based on proportionate measures of income, so rich pay more tax than poor (as they should)... The people who come in also pay taxes which also funds the healthcare system (among other government initiatives).

The only people who can pay the full 'real' cost of healthcare are the fabulously wealthy. And I don't want to live in such an unequal society.




Somebody's got to pay for your "right to health care." You bums who think that you're owed something free better look to the working slobs who foot the bill for your "free" trips to the doctor. Last I looked, no one pays for my trips to see my doctor (since, as a working American, I don't qualify for "free" health care, what a load). I pay for that shit out of my own wallet.

You ever think that the majority of people who go to the doctor here (or in EU) have jobs? Because we do. If I remember the unemployment rate recently published by StatsCan is 8%. If 8% of people don't pay income tax (though the proportion is higher because of the exemption on people earning less than 14,000$), they still pay sales tax (among other taxes).And in fact, I proudly support these people while they are on the bottom of the barrel because , I care about my fellow man
, no matter how much money they have or contribute.

[Cato]

You ever think that the majority of people who go to the doctor here (or in EU) have jobs? Because we do. If I remember the unemployment rate recently published by StatsCan is 8%. If 8% of people don't pay income tax (though the proportion is higher because of the exemption on people earning less than 14,000$), they still pay sales tax (among other taxes).And in fact, I proudly support these people while they are on the bottom of the barrel because , I care about my fellow man
, no matter how much money they have or contribute.

Who do you think I am, a panhandler?

[The Lawspeaker]

Let me put it this way: a nation that does not provide for it's citizens and keeps them safe in their hours of need after having extorted taxes from them is not a nation and a home for a people but a roofstaat (to use a good Dutch word. A state that lives off extortion and looting). And I honestly belief that any nationalist that opposes general free healthcare for everyone is not a nationalist and any Christian that argues against free healthcare is not a Christian.

I am more then willing to pay some more taxes (that would include sales tax and excises) if the money would be used for providing medical care for my kin, my people and any foreign traveller that falls ill or is injured on his trip. Medical treatment of sickness and injuries is a human right.

[Susi]

Who do you think I am, a panhandler?

I am unaware of your profession, but I hear panhandlers can make quite a bit of (untaxed) income? :D


Medical treatment of sickness and injuries is a human right.

[Cato]

http://www.tanstaafl-cable.com/images/Tanstaafl_Electric_Logo2.gif

Free health care = as long as you don't have to pay for it, it's a natural right that we all deserve.

[anonymaus]

healthcare
TOTALLY FREE.
free
healthcare

I think your post shows an essential element most people lose as they grow from children to adults: dreaming big beautiful dreams.

[The Lawspeaker]

http://www.tanstaafl-cable.com/images/Tanstaafl_Electric_Logo2.gif

Free health care = as long as you don't have to pay for it, it's a natural right that we all deserve.
We all used to pay for it through taxation and the strongest shoulders should bear the heaviest load.
Time to bring that general comprehensive system back, gents.

Consider paying your healthcare tax as paying money to your insurance but in this system the directors of the board don't go on holiday with your money but the system is up held by all those little you's that pay their healthcare tax in case something happens to anyone of them.
It's basically a national mutual insurance scheme.

[Cato]

http://johntracy.me/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ObamaHealthCare.jpg

[Falkata]

I just went to the emergency room. Holy crap so much bureaucracy to get two stitches! It was unreal.

Yeah, I'm glad it's free, but damn next time I cut myself I'm just going to to to the pet store and get the antibiotics and thread to do the damn stitches myself. That's ironically what an American friend of mine does because he doesn't want to pay for it. :coffee:

This sounds sooo familiar :rolleyes:

Yeah and "free". Of course, the doctors are working there and they aren´t being payed with our money, right :coffee:

[Cato]

We all used to pay for it through taxation and the strongest shoulders should bear the heaviest load.
Time to bring that general comprehensive system back, gents.

Consider paying your healthcare tax as paying money to your insurance but in this system the directors of the board don't go on holiday with your money but the system is up held by all those little you's that pay their healthcare tax in case something happens to anyone of them.
It's basically a national mutual insurance scheme.

I don't pay a tax on my life insurance or on my car insurance nor do I reap the direct benefit of the money I put into Social Security, SECA, FICA, etc. I've only said this for the third time. :rolleyes:

[The Lawspeaker]

I don't pay a tax on my life insurance or on my car insurance nor do I reap the direct benefit of the money I put into Social Security, SECA, FICA, etc. I've only said this for the third time. :rolleyes:
Very well.. NOT YET.
That's how insurances work and social security tax and healthcare taxes are just part of paying for a kind of insurance. Just in case..
Frankly speaking: social security and free healthcare are just part of a non-profit national insurance.

[Cato]

Very well but don't come ask for treatment etc when you're fall on hard times. :thumbs up

Social Security is a payroll tax and, if I had the money that was taken out so others can sponge off of my income, I'd be able to afford a modest health care plan of my own. Doesn't that make sense?

[The Lawspeaker]

Social Security is a payroll tax and, if I had the money that was taken out so others can sponge off of my income, I'd be able to afford a modest health care plan of my own. Doesn't that make sense?
Not really because insurance companies do whatever they can do to sponge of your money without rendering the services they promise you. We are already seeing that here in the Netherlands with insurance companies trying to force doctors to only prescribe certain medicines.

We didn't have this problem back in the days of the Ziekenfonds.
But then again.. I don't mind paying for a fellow compatriot because (s)he does the same thing for me. So national healthcare would be a very nationalist idea: the idea of a nation that stands together and looks after each other rather then a collection of individuals.

[Susi]

I don't pay a tax on my life insurance or on my car insurance nor do I reap the direct benefit of the money I put into Social Security, SECA, FICA, etc. I've only said this for the third time. :rolleyes:

Such individualism.... :coffee: Maybe that's why everything in the world is so crap.

[Cato]

Such individualism.... :coffee: Maybe that's why everything in the world is so crap.

And your forum display reads thusly:

Religion: Narcissism.

:rofl:

[The Lawspeaker]

Such individualism.... :coffee: Maybe that's why everything in the world is so crap.
It's a European worldview vs an American one, Susi.
Look.. the thing is that European nations are nations. Usually based on ethnicity, language and common heritage although there are some exceptions and the pattern is now being destroyed by multiculturalism.

[Susi]

And your forum display reads thusly:

Religion: Narcissism.

:rofl:

If you notice, about 3/4 of information in my profile is a joke? :thumb001:

[Falkata]

Such individualism.... :coffee: Maybe that's why everything in the world is so crap.

You can always fly to one of the socialist paradises

http://www.kedificil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/corea-norte-celebr-aniversario-16-3-2749136557.jpg

[Susi]

You can always fly to one of the socialist paradises

http://www.kedificil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/corea-norte-celebr-aniversario-16-3-2749136557.jpg

I prefer Belarus.

[The Lawspeaker]

Hmm Falkata. We can definitely learn a trick to two from socialism. A spirit of community with a sense of belonging, free healthcare and a welfare state and (in countries like former Yugoslavia) workers self management.

Do we have to look at North Korea ? No.. but we could learn a trick to two from the original concepts of Swedish folkhemmet, former Yugoslavia and some smaller alternative ideas found closer to home.

The thing is that one has to learn to distinct between two notions: state socialism and socialism by mutualities. And the latter is definitely preferable as it is based on direct participation of those involved with housing cooperatives, working cooperatives, credit unions and mutual insurances.

Libertarians may have some good ideas regarding self management but Libertarianism and capitalism Milton Friedman-style (Austrian School - economics) completely disregards ethics, completely disregards social behaviour and will inevitably lead to slavery for a large percentage of the population.

If a kind of libertarian socialism, or as I prefer to call it "mutual socialism" coupled with direct democracy is the cure for capitalism's illnesses while not completely wiping out the idea of a free market then I am all for it.

[Guapo]

A spirit of community with a sense of belonging, free healthcare and a welfare state and (in countries like former Yugoslavia) workers self management.


And free education. All states should be like that as long as it's not abused. Yugo in our <3 4eva.

[Cato]

Cradle to grave, way to live.

http://rookery2.viary.com/storagev12/731000/731399_661a_625x1000.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

Cradle to grave, way to live.

http://rookery2.viary.com/storagev12/731000/731399_661a_625x1000.jpg


How different is your system: I want more money.. fuck my neighbours or my countrymen.
:wink

[Cato]

How different is your system: I want more money.. fuck my neighbours or my countrymen.
:wink

The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.

[The Lawspeaker]

And free education. All states should be like that as long as it's not abused. Yugo in our <3 4eva.
Well. Free education ? I believe that all education past your middle school should be "free of charge" in the sense that after your education you pay back that loan by means of taxation in accordance to your income. I do believe that all institutions for higher learning should be privatized (master degrees first) but that prices should still be set by the Ministry of Education. Because otherwise prices will sky-rocket and you will get the same nonsense you now are beginning to see with healthcare: exorbitant prices and the industry making illegal price agreements.

[Guapo]

Well. Free education ? I believe that all education past your middle school should be "free of charge" in the sense that after your education you pay back that loan by means of taxation in accordance to your income. I do believe that all institutions for higher learning should be privatized (master degrees first) but that prices should still be set by the Ministry of Education. Because otherwise prices will sky-rocket and you will get the same nonsense you now are beginning to see with healthcare: exorbitant prices and the industry making illegal price agreements.

Too many rich stupid people go to school while the smart poor ones can't afford it. Just look at George Bush.

[The Lawspeaker]

Too many rich stupid people go to school while the smart poor ones can't afford it. Just look at George Bush.
Under such a system one could get a decent education but you will pay it back through income-based taxes.:)
So it's essentially free tuition.

[Debaser11]

The Canadian immigration system isn't an open tap. It's actually quite difficult to qualify for healthcare (I lived with someone from Mexico who'd been here four years and still didn't qualify for OHIP despite qualifying under the points system for entry... then again it isn't really even, my Russian friend got OHIP in like, 2 years).


No, it's not an open tap. Were you actually responding to me there? Because I don't recall ever claiming it was an open tap. Just because the Canadian government isn't providing every immigrant with an open buffet of healthcare access doesn't mean that immigrants are not having a deleterious effect on the system. It's not exactly a sealed tap, either.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=23718
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/9/1253
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/outside/arriving-healthcare.asp
http://ecmaj.com/cgi/content/full/166/11/1441

And it's not like Canada is the most picky country about who they let in:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/boatload-of-migrants-a-wake-up-call-for-canada/article1670037/




http://www.glowleaf.net/anarchy.jpg? :D


*Sigh* I really wish you'd learn basic logical fallacies. You seem prone to strawman arguments.



It isn't a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't promise ridiculous returns. Besides that taxation is based on proportionate measures of income, so rich pay more tax than poor (as they should)... The people who come in also pay taxes which also funds the healthcare system (among other government initiatives).

Claims like "everyone is entitled to FREE healthcare" are Ponzi schemes if there ever was one. How absurd must the language become before it meets your standard of "ridiculous"? And I'll bet the last generation that pays into such a system and doesn't see a return on it (as in the system collapses before they become old and use it more) would find such a description to be very appropriate.

I also disagree with your argument that the rich should pay more. I don't see why someone who earns more money is more responsible for other people's healthcare.


The only people who can pay the full 'real' cost of healthcare are the fabulously wealthy. And I don't want to live in such an unequal society.

I had no idea people were unable to afford doctors before government stepped in. Furthermore, I need to find all that money that my ancestors lost somewhere along the line.:rolleyes2:

I also find the manner in which you throw around the word "unequal" to be very creepy. People aren't all equal. Trying to carve out an equal society from unequal parts certainly flies in the face of personal liberty. I'll take Thomas Jefferson over Karl Marx, thank you.




You ever think that the majority of people who go to the doctor here (or in EU) have jobs? Because we do.

I never argued that people didn't. But I don't agree that having a job necessarily entitles you to take another person's money so you can go see a doctor.


If I remember the unemployment rate recently published by StatsCan is 8%. If 8% of people don't pay income tax (though the proportion is higher because of the exemption on people earning less than 14,000$), they still pay sales tax (among other taxes). And in fact, I proudly support these people while they are on the bottom of the barrel because , I care about my fellow man
, no matter how much money they have or contribute.

Why are you trying to muddle up this issue with remarks about sales tax? This boils down to net contributors and net takers. My issue is with the ones who are taking more than they are putting into the system. The people who don't pay income tax are likely net takers despite the fact that they do have to pay sales tax (and even then they can sometimes dodge paying their share:http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/01/local/la-me-welfare-20100701).
I don't think just because someone is poor, that it entitles them to someone else's wealth.

Forcing altruism on society does not make you a better person despite the tone you're putting on here. How gracious of YOU to agree to using SOMEONE ELSE'S money to pay for people's medical bills. You're a real hero. I wish I could learn to "care" like you!:rolleyes2:

[Óttar]

You can always fly to one of the socialist paradises

http://www.kedificil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/corea-norte-celebr-aniversario-16-3-2749136557.jpg
Can't you people come up with an original argument? After this, you have nothing. :coffee:


I also disagree with your argument that the rich should pay more.
Is it possible to give .5 thanks for this one? :D I think the rich should pay the same as everyone else.

[Falkata]

Can't you people come up with an original argument? After this, you have nothing. :coffee:



And what do you have? That free healthcare is free and that just millionaires can pay the real cost of it? :confused:
It´s not only not original, but completely false.
With the money that the state steals me every month (more than the 30% of MY salary) I could afford for a very good health insurance, the best one probably. It should be a crime. I´m working like 8 days a month for the State like if this was the Middle age.
I dont need "Daddy State" telling me how i´ve to invest my money.
I´m old enough and I´m not retarded. I want to spend my money as I want because I´ve worked to earn it.
Pure and simple. If instead of buying an insurance i want to spend that money in wine, videogames or prostitutes is MY problem.
I think some people are scared of being totally responsibles of their own lives. Can´t you plan and organize your life? Dont know you how to save, invest...?

And no, it´s not free at all so cut the crap because the CD is scratched. Nothing is free, the doctors are not working for the lulz and the hospitals didnt build themselves. The citiziens are paying for it. The good ones of course. The lazy, uneducated and shitty ones are just using the services by free

[Gamera]

Lol... oh come on guys, you should try the Peruvian public healthcare system, now that's quite an experience. :D

[Gamera]

Such individualism.... :coffee: Maybe that's why everything in the world is so crap.

In the country I live in, Peru, the middle class (mostly mestizo and white) and the rich (composed of mostly white people) have to pay much more taxes than the lower classes (composed mainly by amerindians), even our water receipt is charged higher than theirs because we are supposed to subvention their needs...

It doesn't exactly make me to happy.

[Óttar]

Kleenexes should not cost $5000. And private doctors make lawyers look like saints.

[Debaser11]

^ That's not at all a fair comment. I don't think you should smear a bunch of people who dedicate their lives to helping people simply because you disagree with the costs of their services. The doctors themselves are hardly to blame for the high costs of healthcare. Furthermore, being a doctor is not like working at McDonald's. The people who work hard and become doctors have earned their wealth as far as I'm concerned.

[Murphy]

Yes. The NHS is such a drain on Britain's economy! Never mind that little war going on that is draining billions from the people every year! Scrap public healthcare and free the little man!

I owe my life to public healthcare. My parents wouldn't have been able to afford private.. and it is the same with many others. I do not deny there are some problems.. such as people taking advantage of this service, and there needs to be a crack down on it.

But throwing away one of the genuine goods in the world because some people wish to abuse it, is simply wrong.

[Treffie]

My father died of malnutrition in a British hospital, so I used to be quite angry at the NHS and used to think it was just a money munching dinosaur, but when I compare it to other countries, I'm quite grateful for what we have.

[The Lawspeaker]

Yes. The NHS is such a drain on Britain's economy! Never mind that little war going on that is draining billions from the people every year! Scrap public healthcare and free the little man!

I owe my life to public healthcare. My parents wouldn't have been able to afford private.. and it is the same with many others. I do not deny there are some problems.. such as people taking advantage of this service, and there needs to be a crack down on it.

But throwing away one of the genuine goods in the world because some people wish to abuse it, is simply wrong.
"Applauds".

Same here. I owe my very life to Dutch public healthcare as my father was a normal public servant and my mother a zookeeper and later on sick and a housewife.

They would never have been able to afford private healthcare.

[Rachel]

What i am surprised at is the lack of control by our goverment ( American) to not only give us free health care but to control who has access to it.( if we did indeed have it, America would face the same abuses that other countires face) The goverment has lists of people who do not work ( there call unemployement records) and thus they know who is paying into the system. People who are unemployed should still get free healthcare but they should volunteer their time to obtain it, so that they are giving something back to the country that supports them. Bums and Homeless people should have to volunteer somewhere within their community and have records and work hour logs of their time volunteering in order to obtain free health care. One can put effort into the country without having to have a job. ( not that, they should'nt strive to obtain a job, but times are tough right now people need other ways of giving into the system.)

[Susi]

No, it's not an open tap. Were you actually responding to me there? Because I don't recall ever claiming it was an open tap. Just because the Canadian government isn't providing every immigrant with an open buffet of healthcare access doesn't mean that immigrants are not having a deleterious effect on the system. It's not exactly a sealed tap, either.

Just because I don't use your exact wording doesn't mean that something wasn't said?


*Sigh* I really wish you'd learn basic logical fallacies. You seem prone to strawman arguments.

And I wish that you'd stop assuming that I'm completely and totally retarded. There's been enough of these arguments on your part also, so I assumed it was ok? :thumb001: I don't think it's possible to argue with complete, cold logic without involving some sort of 'fallacy'... besides I thought the emoticon would indicate it was a joke? ^^


Claims like "everyone is entitled to FREE healthcare" are Ponzi schemes if there ever was one. How absurd must the language become before it meets your standard of "ridiculous"? And I'll bet the last generation that pays into such a system and doesn't see a return on it (as in the system collapses before they become old and use it more) would find such a description to be very appropriate.

Sweetpea, I don't think you understand. We pay taxes, which pay for the healthcare. We don't have to pay at the time of care because it is already paid for by the people.


I also disagree with your argument that the rich should pay more. I don't see why someone who earns more money is more responsible for other people's healthcare.

I meant pay more taxes. The income distribution is incredibly uneven, with very few people holding most of the wealth. They have more money than they or several generations of their family will ever need and probably are accumulating more. And don't even say that philanthropy is an adequate measure for redistributing wealth. The rich pay more taxes because they earn more on the backs of the proletariat.

If you really think they should pay the same, why should the rich pay the same as me, who earns just slightly above the cut off and pays 400$ on my taxable income? It's a matter of proportion..


I had no idea people were unable to afford doctors before government stepped in. Furthermore, I need to find all that money that my ancestors lost somewhere along the line.:rolleyes2:

The government stepped in at a point that medicine was beginning to evolve. Previously, medicine (and arguably public health education) was quite primitive, and many people did not use doctors.


I also find the manner in which you throw around the word "unequal" to be very creepy. People aren't all equal. Trying to carve out an equal society from unequal parts certainly flies in the face of personal liberty. I'll take Thomas Jefferson over Karl Marx, thank you.

"Personal liberty" is always gained on the backs of other people. I'll take a nightmareish Marxist society over an individualistic society based on someone stomping on someone else to get ahead. I always thought the basis of nationalism (arguably a dominant ideological strain here) was on a sort of association with one's fellow countrymen... apparently I am wrong. Then again, I believe Asega told me that this is the difference between America and Europe.


I never argued that people didn't. But I don't agree that having a job necessarily entitles you to take another person's money so you can go see a doctor.

It's my turn to ask you to learn something. Learn how the government works and how taxation works, please.



I don't think just because someone is poor, that it entitles them to someone else's wealth.

We're not even talking about "taking someone else's wealth". We're talking about paying for someone's care because they are sick or dying. Only a callous person would take an issue of compassion and make it about money.


Forcing altruism on society does not make you a better person despite the tone you're putting on here. How gracious of YOU to agree to using SOMEONE ELSE'S money to pay for people's medical bills. You're a real hero. I wish I could learn to "care" like you!:rolleyes2:

How compassionate of you to say "eff everyone else I have my money and they have theirs and they can go die in a dark, dark hole for all I care".



^ That's not at all a fair comment. I don't think you should smear a bunch of people who dedicate their lives to helping people simply because you disagree with the costs of their services. The doctors themselves are hardly to blame for the high costs of healthcare. Furthermore, being a doctor is not like working at McDonald's. The people who work hard and become doctors have earned their wealth as far as I'm concerned.

Doctors do not dedicate themselves to helping people. Doctors dedicate themselves to the idea of being better than everyone else (at least most of them). To be a doctor involves a lot of rote memorisation (have you ever looked at the licensing exams?), not proper inference and the general strategy is that "it will be the most common thing". I work with doctors. Trust me.


In any case, I like Rachel's idea of the unemployed volunteering for the state in order to 'put something back' into the system.

[Birka]

The healthcare just sucks there, I guess. Here in England the NHS service is very good in my experience. And TOTALLY FREE. Screw capitalism, free essential healthcare for all is a RIGHT in the civilized world, you shouldn't have to pay for it. :coffee:

Food, clean water, and shelter are probably more important than healthcare. Why should people have to pay for those essential services?

[Falkata]

"Applauds".

Same here. I owe my very life to Dutch public healthcare as my father was a normal public servant and my mother a zookeeper and later on sick and a housewife.

They would never have been able to afford private healthcare.

It´s not that expensive. I pay like 100€/month for a very good insurance healthcare with Aegon , dutch company i think btw. It covers me basically everything in every part of the civilized and semi-civilized world. I was sick in Rep Dominican 3 years ago thanks to the horrible water that they have there and in 30 minutes I had a doctor in my hotel.
I pay around 500€ (well, most of the money is payed directly by the company and I can´t even see a cent) to the State for the Social Security. I use ALWAYS the private service because it works way better. Something it´s going really wrong here then...
If your parents hadn´t to pay all the huge taxes every month to the public healthcare they could invest that money in a private one. After all they weren´t unemployed or homeless, just working class people.
It´s not like I´m a millionaire neither, but unless you are extremely poor everybody can pay a private health insurance. But it´s strange to hear sometimes people complaining that they can´t afford for one when they have a big tv, playstation, a car (and they pay the car insurance without any problem)...

[Murphy]

Food, clean water, and shelter are probably more important than healthcare. Why should people have to pay for those essential services?

And food, shelter and clean water cost enough already.

[Birka]

And food, shelter and clean water cost enough already.


Yes, so they should be free like healthcare, according to many socialists here. Why not just make everything free? We deserve it.

[Murphy]

Yes, so they should be free like healthcare, according to many socialists here. Why not just make everything free? We deserve it.

Do not get me wrong. I am not saying everyone should get free healthcare. Only those who cannot afford it. If you have the money, you damn well should go private.

[Falkata]

J
The rich pay more taxes because they earn more on the backs of the proletariat.



LoLwut :confused::eek: Welcome to the XXI century kamarraden. The rich earn money because they worked for it in most of cases and they were smart or lucky (or both) enough.
If a "proletarian" doesn´t like his job he can always create his own company. Nobody is forbidding him to do such thing. But maybe they dont want to work that hard, risk their money and have way more responsabilities :coffee:

This is the galician Amancio Ortega, the richest man in Spain and the 9th in the world according with Forbes magazine. He´s the owner of Inditex, a huge multinational that is present all around the world. It includes brands like Zara, Pull & Bear, Bershka, Massimo Dutti, Stradivarius...
http://fcom.us.es/blogs/empresariosuniversales/files/2009/05/8-amancio-ortega.jpg

He was just a humble employee of a clothing store until his 30´s, when he decided to open his own shop. He was succesful and he started to open more and more until now. The man worked like crazy, he had balls, he was lucky and he was very smart and his family was very modest...so why this man doesn´t deserve what he got? Why the other "proletarians" didn´t try to do the same?
We dont live in the XII century anymore and talking about social classes is completely ridiculous and outdated. You can born poor and die millionaire and the opposite can happen too. Don´t blame the business men because after all they are the ones who are giving you a job and a salary. If you dont like it you can always open your own company, if you are brave enough of course. It´s easier to cry and complain all the time. But while you arrive at home after your 8h/day work without any responsability until the next day, the owner has more preocupations than you can even imagine.

[Peasant]

The MPs and politicians leeching money out of the system is a bigger worry than paying for some poor sod to survive.

And pure capitalism is disgusting.

[lei.talk]

Libertarians may have some good ideas regarding self management but Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) and capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman)-style (Austrian School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) - economics) completely disregards ethics, completely disregards social behaviour and will inevitably lead to slavery for a large percentage of the population.

[The Lawspeaker]

But of course. Libertarianism will for instance lead to income inequality as minimum wages, welfare and labour protection laws will be dropped. You will end up with a situation like the 19th century or what you will in India today with people working for a starvation wage and will be forced to buy their food at high prices at shops held by their own bosses and when they need assistance they will be left alone and sacked.

This is the jungle that pure Libertarianism will lead too.
There is nothing wrong with the idea of a free market but a pure free market will lead to freedom for a couple of rich folks and slavery for the many.

[Sahson]

Hmm Falkata. We can definitely learn a trick to two from socialism. A spirit of community with a sense of belonging, free healthcare and a welfare state and (in countries like former Yugoslavia) workers self management.

Do we have to look at North Korea ? No.. but we could learn a trick to two from the original concepts of Swedish folkhemmet, former Yugoslavia and some smaller alternative ideas found closer to home.

The thing is that one has to learn to distinct between two notions: state socialism and socialism by mutualities. And the latter is definitely preferable as it is based on direct participation of those involved with housing cooperatives, working cooperatives, credit unions and mutual insurances.

Libertarians may have some good ideas regarding self management but Libertarianism and capitalism Milton Friedman-style (Austrian School - economics) completely disregards ethics, completely disregards social behaviour and will inevitably lead to slavery for a large percentage of the population.

If a kind of libertarian socialism, or as I prefer to call it "mutual socialism" coupled with direct democracy is the cure for capitalism's illnesses while not completely wiping out the idea of a free market then I am all for it.

I feel exactly the same way. I am very much a left winged person. I am currently living in such a country, where there is no difference between public and private healthcare. I pay healthcare taxes just like everybody else, but then I also pay for insurance that covers me, where public does not.

Australia seems to be middle of the road in this case between NHS, and USA. I fully support public healthcare too. My mother became ill last year, and finally for the first time in years we would have been able to claim back on our healthcare insurance, but we did not.

My mother went to a doctor, who recommended her to a public surgeon, instead of a privatized surgeon. After checking up on the surgeon, and seeing him, she very felt very confident with him, and went to a public hospital. she had the operation, and had two very experienced surgeons work on her. The cost was our taxes, we didn't need the insurance for the operation after all.

If I was to get run over by a bus, I would be taken to the nearest public hospital and given the surgery/etc. no questions asked. I think public healthcare has its benefits.

I have also lived in a country(Malaysia) where privatised was very important for expats. I have had mixed feelings with this. I have a nasty scar on my skull still after 12 years from seeing the best specialist in the country at the time. the cost just to see him was RM500($150) an hour. then we had to buy our medications... You never really felt safe with your health, I personally think, and because we were expats, we could be extorted, however some of the local 24 hour clinics there were great.

Either way my preference would be a successful public healthcare system, then private.

[Falkata]

[FONT="Georgia"]But of course. Libertarianism will for instance lead to income inequality as minimum wages, welfare and labour protection laws will be dropped.


Minimum wages are either useless or produce unemployment.

Basic Example:

-Useless

If clowns earn 10€/hour and the government establishes that the minimum salary for them is 5€/hour, then the measure is completely useless and doesn´t affect the economy.

-Produce unemployment

If clowns earn 10€/hour and the goverment establishes that the minimum salary for them is 12€/hour, then the labor´s supply will rise because the job is now more attractive for the people. However, at the same time, many of the people who hired clowns will not do it anymore because the price is too high and there´s not profitability. We would have a decrease of labor´s demand here.

An increase of the labor´s supply + a decrease of the labor´s demand = Unemployment

[The Lawspeaker]

That's the theory. What was the real deal like ?
Either go to America or visit the old slums that dot Europe.

[Allenson]

Such individualism.... :coffee: Maybe that's why everything in the world is so crap.

Much individualism, here in America anyway, stems from being repeatedly sponged off of by those not willing to fend for themselves. There's only so much a person can take before the walls are built--particularly by those who ask nothing themselves.

[Oinakos Growion]

I always thought the basis of nationalism (arguably a dominant ideological strain here) was on a sort of association with one's fellow countrymen... apparently I am wrong. Then again, I believe Asega told me that this is the difference between America and Europe
Indeed.
IMHO a nation is built on the sense of national community, of fellow nationals-citizens and so on. What's the problem in chipping in for common basic services? You never know when you'll need them yourself, or someone in your family or whatever. All for one and one for all and so on (among kindred).
I don't quite get this fear of some to "the evil government taxing us"... Some forget that in a democracy "we" are government too, as we're entitled to run for it, vote, etc. Now, how this is organised is a different story altogether. That's when the ideas of direct democracy, regionalisation, flexible administration, etc can be discussed. But at the end of the day my nation is my nation and I have no problem whatsoever in contributing with taxes for things such as health provision as long as this is properly managed and monitored.
If there really is a divide between Europe and the US in this issue then this reinforces the idea that Americans of European descent can't really be considered European, because despite ethnicity a culture is also fundamentally based on a shared perception of the world and how our communities/nations are built and how we relate with each other.


Food, clean water, and shelter are probably more important than healthcare. Why should people have to pay for those essential services?
In Ireland water is free, for example. In Iberia water costs more or less depending on the area (normally this is linked to the natural resources present in the place, where often local governments pay up a percentage on behalf of the citizens so you don't have to pay a too high tax). Food and shelter are basic human needs and are implicit in any national Constitution, often as a "right" (hence why there's governmental departments in charge of such issues - Those departments screwing up or not working properly is a different story altogether too).

[Tony]

I would get it if people refused to pay all taxes but don't get why they attack only the healthcare share , why don't Americans start a campaign to stop taxation to public force like military and police as well?after all Americans are almost all armed and private security works better than the public one?
or not?

[anonymaus]

I would get it if people refused to pay all taxes but don't get why they attack only the healthcare share , why don't Americans start a campaign to stop taxation to public force like military and police as well?after all Americans are almost all armed and private security works better than the public one?
or not?

If the government funded private security forces to fulfill its constitutional mandate, part of which is the national defense, that would be acceptable. Police are a fundamental aspect of our society along with the judicial system: they represent and judiciously mete out the power of the individual on our behalf: the protection of our rights, which we have purposefully invested in them.

[Groenewolf]

It´s not that expensive. I pay like 100€/month for a very good insurance healthcare with Aegon , dutch company i think btw.

(...)

But it´s strange to hear sometimes people complaining that they can´t afford for one when they have a big tv, playstation, a car (and they pay the car insurance without any problem)...

Ah deciding whether one wants health or a playstation.

Indeed if one sets it's priorities straight most people can easily afford private health-care. And it is not like that 'free' health care is without costs. In fact practically all welfare states got permanent budget-deficits. And sooner or later have to cut coverage, or raise taxes on those providing the larger part of the economic health of the nation.

The really rich persons will suffer little on it. They can afford to hire the expertise needed to make sure they pay as little as taxes as possible and of course more easily move their business to an other country. The most heaviest burden falls on the small entrepreneur who also provide most of the employability. Who will be faced with higher costs and can therefor run a higher risk of going broke.

Now does this mean their should be now national healthcare at all? No, there should probably exist some emergency fund for the real poor. And that does not include those who think that a fancy car is more important then their health.

[Grumpy Cat]

Wow. There's some good discussion going on and I just posted this thread to vent lol

[Oinakos Growion]

Wow. There's some good discussion going on and I just posted this thread to vent lol
And it'd be even better if we could all get around a table with some pints but... oh well! :D

[Tony]

If the government funded private security forces to fulfill its constitutional mandate, part of which is the national defense, that would be acceptable. Police are a fundamental aspect of our society along with the judicial system: they represent and judiciously mete out the power of the individual on our behalf: the protection of our rights, which we have purposefully invested in them.
(If I got it right...)
But if government founded them then it would no longer be private.
So you're basically asking for a public founded and privately conducted thing , the utopia :rolleyes:

LoLwut :confused::eek: Welcome to the XXI century kamarraden. The rich earn money because they worked for it in most of cases and they were smart or lucky (or both) enough.
If a "proletarian" doesn´t like his job he can always create his own company. Nobody is forbidding him to do such thing. But maybe they dont want to work that hard, risk their money and have way more responsabilities :coffee:

That's myth , most rich people didn't earn the money by themselves but simply inherited from their parents , many of them are so idiot that would deserve to spend their days at forced labors.
Bill Gates doesn't come out every day...

[anonymaus]

(If I got it right...)
But if government founded them then it would no longer be private.
So you're basically asking for a public founded and privately conducted thing , the utopia :rolleyes:

You understood me correctly but you're mistaking the core aspect of that debate: it isn't between public vs private, it's between order and anarchy.

an example chart of sorts:

If you believe in order, and are a capitalist and a constitutionalist: you could support what i said.
If you believe in order, and are anti-capitalist and a democrat: you would support the police part, but be against "enriching" private security.
If you do not believe in order, you would be an anarchist (capitalist or syndicalist) and support neither.

[Oinakos Growion]

Playing devil's advocate (:D): ah... but even Anarchism believes in order. The actual basis of it all is "self-organization". How this is achieved or what this "self" and "organization" are is open to debate though. So open that they never really got anywhere but... whatever :)


Bill Gates doesn't come out every day...
And he's not such a good example either ;)

[Sol Invictus]

If you do not believe in order, you would be an anarchist

If by order you mean hierarchy then yes.

[Albion]

but I'll be living off of the taxpayers in a generation or two. :coffee:
Exactly, so stop moaning then.
Maybe free healthcare should only be provided to those who actually work or are willing to work, then you'd have nothing to complain about.

[Oinakos Growion]

This is the galician Amancio Ortega, the richest man in Spain and the 9th in the world according with Forbes magazine
Galician by residence only, not by ethnicity.


why this man doesn´t deserve what he got? Why the other "proletarians" didn´t try to do the same?
He certainly worked hard and deserved some success, but he also progressed at the expense of others which is, IMO, where things start getting wrong.
To date he has some open cases on workers' conditions, underpaid workers, exploitation, etc. His success story is not that straightforward despite his apparent humility and low profile.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone who discovers a vaccine for cancer getting immensely rich but in the field of "businessmen"... brrr... it's quicksands area there... Hard to tell who's the honest hardworker and who's the snake.

[Falkata]

That's myth , most rich people didn't earn the money by themselves but simply inherited from their parents , many of them are so idiot that would deserve to spend their days at forced labors.
Bill Gates doesn't come out every day...

A myth? :confused: I gave you the example of Amancio Ortega, now you are giving me the one of Bill Gates... what kind of myth is that when many of the richest people in the world came from nothing? I suppose you know Warren Buffett. He´s another example of millionaire who came from a normal family. Do you know Mittal? You have there another textbook example of this, in this case an extreme example since the man was really poor.
There are tons of examples, but it´s easier to believe that "meh, they aren´t rich because they are smarter or work harder than me, just because their families are rich bastards who eat children for breakfast".
And anyway what happen if their parents were rich ? Is that a sin? Should Bill Gates sons start from zero for some reason? Aren´t you lucky too for being born in Italy instead of Zambia? Is that fair?

[Debaser11]

Just because I don't use your exact wording doesn't mean that something wasn't said?

You really like to argue to from the standpoint of not giving ground rather than to try to be arrive at some sort of understanding, huh? In other words, it seems to me that you'll argue just to argue rather than because you think you're actually right about a given point. Go to my original post and find where I stated that all or even most immigrants are given access to Canada's healthcare.


And I wish that you'd stop assuming that I'm completely and totally retarded.

You just did it again! Like I said, please learn what one is.


There's been enough of these arguments on your part also, so I assumed it was ok? :thumb001:

Where?


I don't think it's possible to argue with complete, cold logic without involving some sort of 'fallacy'... besides I thought the emoticon would indicate it was a joke? ^^

Yes, I did think that the emoticon may have been meant to indicate that it was partly a joke. But it was still egg on my face. Just because you make a joke, doesn't mean that you're not obscuring my argument or communicating something at my expense (which in this case I find to be asinine). There was still an element of "well, what else do you want? THIS?" As if my argument was so extreme that that was the only logical conclusion a person could come to.


Sweetpea, I don't think you understand. We pay taxes, which pay for the healthcare. We don't have to pay at the time of care because it is already paid for by the people.

Look, you silly broad (since again, you lower the standards of conversation), I understand that people pay taxes. Again, you're trying to obscure this by making the claim that it is "paid by the people." I understand that taxpayers put money into the system. I still object. I don't like some people paying more than others just because they have more money. I disagree with that level of altruism being forced on people. I've been quite clear why.

(You keep trying to explain to me how the system works here and later on in your post; I know how it works. What you don't understand is that I have philosophical grounds for opposing it. As much as people like yourself value these "rights" that come from other people's pocketbooks, I value negative rights to a certain degree, which is a concept that seems completely foreign to you.)


I meant pay more taxes. The income distribution is incredibly uneven, with very few people holding most of the wealth. They have more money than they or several generations of their family will ever need

This is such a self-serving argument. First of all, how does income distribution address anything I argued? And really? Income distribution is uneven? I had no idea. I had no idea. So I guess THAT'S why some people are rich, some are in the middle, and some are poor.:lightbul: With that being said, I repeat myself. I disagree with government healthcare from a philosophical standpoint (and even from a practical standpoint). What is the standard for "more money than they or several generations of their family will ever need?"

What's the standard there? I can tell you're not a lawyer when you make arguments like this. These standards are relative. To a starving person, this standard applies to people living in a first world country. To a poor person in the U.K. or America, this applies to most middle to upper middle class people. How do you define "need"? Certainly you don't need ANY of the material items you have aside from the ones that sustain you. Making this into some utilitarian argument like you've just made, I can argue that all of your spending outside of the basic life-sustaining necessities should be used to fund healthcare. You very much have more than you need to some kids in Addis Ababa. So don't go to the movies. Don't go shopping. Don't buy that nice dinner. That money can be used to help them. It's the same logic.

And "several generations"? Real clear language there. So if the household has more than money than they'll ever need for a COUPLE of generations, they shouldn't have to pay as much as a household you casually estimate to have more than they'll need for SEVERAL generations? And how do you know that somewhere down the line that family may not end up NEEDING every surplus cent that was taken from them because of some unforeseen circumstance?


and probably are accumulating more. And don't even say that philanthropy is an adequate measure for redistributing wealth. The rich pay more taxes because they earn more on the backs of the proletariat.

Whether or not philanthropy is an adequate measure or not for redistributing wealth is complete red herring to my argument. I don't accept that the rich are under any moral obligation to redistribute it in the first place. Again, I've been clear.


If you really think they should pay the same, why should the rich pay the same as me, who earns just slightly above the cut off and pays 400$ on my taxable income? It's a matter of proportion..

Yes, everyone should pay the same. First of all, the person that worked hard and studied to become something that allows them to earn more money will justifiably have more purchasing power. They earned their money by focusing their efforts into becoming something that the marketplace tells us is valuable. It's also good that such jobs are incentivized in this manner.

I reject that a person should pay more for any good or service in order to bring that purchase "into proportion" with someone who makes less than they do. I believe in people paying the market value for goods or services. When you write that it's a "matter of proportion," you make it sound is if the rich person just costs more to treat rather than that he's paying for his bill and several other people's bills.




The government stepped in at a point that medicine was beginning to evolve. Previously, medicine (and arguably public health education) was quite primitive, and many people did not use doctors.

So before, medicine wasn't evolving? Medicine is always evolving just like other technology.
Yeah, cell phones were outrageously expensive at one time. So were laptops, flat screen televisions, cd players. Supply and demand streamline this technology and reduce costs to the consumer in the long run. Medicine is still a product. It works according to market laws in the same fashion. It does not have some magic property that requires the government to handle it in order to bring it to market.




"Personal liberty" is always gained on the backs of other people.

Please explain what you mean here. I dare say you don't understand what I mean by "personal liberty."



I'll take a nightmareish Marxist society over an individualistic society based on someone stomping on someone else to get ahead.

I never advocated a society where people are "stomping on someone else to get ahead." You do this kind of arguing in every response you make.

And I think we're more individualistic now than we've ever have been as our culture has gone more to the left. There are more government programs in place to eradicate poverty or to "better society," yet I bet if I were to hop in a time machine and travel 70-80 years into the past (before Great Society measures were enacted) I'd find a very communal culture that looked out for each other. I think my grandparents are struck by just how individualistic everything has gotten in their lifetime. I think in some ways, they pity the world my generation is inheriting despite the fact that the government was "looking out for them" less in their salad days. The world 70-80 years in the past would be a stark contrast with what I find today. You're making this logical leap that it needs to be the government that makes the culture less individualistic and selfish. That's not how it works.

Very few people identify themselves by the collective roots of their ancestry. Nation states are becoming quaint because the world is now a "global village." Individualism is lauded from a cultural perspective by our media. It's only economic individualism (personal responsibility and liberty which go hand-in-hand) that is ridiculed.



I always thought the basis of nationalism (arguably a dominant ideological strain here) was on a sort of association with one's fellow countrymen... apparently I am wrong. Then again, I believe Asega told me that this is the difference between America and Europe.

Okay, let's look at history. When did nationalist fervor reach its peak? When governments were chucking out all sorts of social services? WRONG! People were much more patriotic in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than they are today. Today, with more government services than ever before, people are struggling to RETAIN their culture. Yet two centuries ago (even if the internet existed then), a site like this would hardly be as important. Feelings of nationalism are linked to culture more than they are to class. This is something the Marxists found out from observing the Great War. When Germany began fighting Great Britain, did the proletariat from each country band together? No. They stayed loyal to their countrymen despite the levels of disparity. You're trying to connect social services to nationalist feelings. It's unwarranted.




It's my turn to ask you to learn something. Learn how the government works and how taxation works, please.

We're not even talking about "taking someone else's wealth". We're talking about paying for someone's care because they are sick or dying. Only a callous person would take an issue of compassion and make it about money.

Then again, there are plenty of starving people you can help. Surely there must be people you can help with your money. Yet I'd imagine since you're a human being, you choose to spend it on frivolities from time to time. It's not about money. Don't mischaracterize my argument. I like charity. This is about liberty and freedom. And what is it about taxation that I don't understand, Susi? I'm listening. How is making someone pay into a system more than another person for the same services not wealth redistribution? And how is wealth redistribution not taking someone else's money?




How compassionate of you to say "eff everyone else I have my money and they have theirs and they can go die in a dark, dark hole for all I care".

Yeah. Because I totally said that. Good one. Seriously. Where do I do this level of strawmaning to you in my responses? It's one after another. I distinguish between charity and altruism. You don't.



Doctors do not dedicate themselves to helping people. Doctors dedicate themselves to the idea of being better than everyone else (at least most of them).

Evidence for this claim? Any?


To be a doctor involves a lot of rote memorisation (have you ever looked at the licensing exams?), not proper inference and the general strategy is that "it will be the most common thing". I work with doctors. Trust me.

Oh, okay. Here all this time I thought neurosurgeons who took Hyppocratic Oaths and who often volunteer their services free of charge were motivated to do good. But according to you, most doctors just like being better.
http://www.volunteerdoctors.org/
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/volunteering-doctors/
http://spotlight.vitals.com/2010/01/american-doctors-on-missions-to-help-haiti-earthquake-victims/
Read the comments on the last link.

Here's a small sample of them:

"I am a Fl. licensed Acupuncture Physician, Hypnotherapist and Massage Therapist in central fl.. If I can help please contact me

"I am currently a third year surgical resident in New Jersey - UMDNJ. I am interested in going to Haiti to volunteer specifically from Jan 30th to Feb 6th. I have seen many comments above in which doctors are interested in traveling to Haiti to help out."

"I am a family practice trained urgent care doctor form San Francisco.
I am available to volunteer in Haiti for up to four weeks.
Please contact me if you need my help. Or, if you know where I may apply to advertise my help, please let me know. Thank You"

"Board Certified Cardiac Anesthesiologist. Familiar with cardiac, thoracic and major vascular anesthesia. Would like to volunteer. Please contact me."

SEVERAL of them read that way. If that's how you define people as being dedicated to "the idea of being better than everyone else," I wish we had more people like that. Put me a world full of them over people who think they are entitled to "free" healthcare any day of the week.

[Sol Invictus]

Day two of the biggest shitstorm on the forum. :D

[Óttar]

As if most doctors were like those people. :rolleyes2: One does alternative medicine and one is a student idealist. When they get caught up in the system, they will be rooking people and trying to protect their own asses instead of taking responsibility for their negligence.

The above is just a sample of volunteers. It says nothing about the doctor who only cares about summering in the Hamptons, and buying the latest yacht while some kid gets Cerebral Palsy because he's out to lunch, and then he laughs all the way to the bank. Hippocratic Oath? More like Hypocrite's Oath.

[Äike]

Estonia has free health care and I couldn't imagine living in a country without free health care.

It is said that Healthcare in Estonia is better than Britain's NHS.

[Debaser11]

As if most doctors were like those people. :rolleyes2:


Where did I make the claim that most are? Susi was the one that made the claim about how most doctors think like it was some truism. I merely stated that I THOUGHT most were motivated to do good and then I provided some evidence. You can't make that simple distinction, buddy?


One does alternative medicine and one is a student idealist. When they get caught up in the system, they will be rooking people and trying to protect their own asses instead of taking responsibility for their negligence.

Yeah, okay Ottar. Keep making baseless claims. You're only strengthening my argument in the eyes of any objective reader.


The above is just a sample of volunteers. It says nothing about the doctor who only cares about summering in the Hamptons, and buying the latest yacht while some kid gets Cerebral Palsy because he's out to lunch, and then he laughs all the way to the bank. Hippocratic Oath? More like Hypocrite's Oath.

Yeah. Okay. At least I tried to provide evidence for why I think about doctors in general the way I do. On the other hand, you seem to think that your arguments need no more support than what you can conjure up from your imagination.:rolleyes:

[Debaser11]

Estonia has free health care and I couldn't imagine living in a country without free health care.

It is said that Healthcare in Estonia is better than Britain's NHS.

Estonia doesn't have a bunch of dead weight nor does it have an underclass that suffers from health problems due to lifestyle choices anywhere near the level that the U.S. does.

[Falkata]

Estonia has free health care and I couldn't imagine living in a country without free health care.

It is said that Healthcare in Estonia is better than Britain's NHS.

is it free? Wow it´s amazing that estonian doctors work for free. What an altruist bunch.
Do you guys give them some rice and water to keep them alive at least or when they starve you change them?

[Oinakos Growion]

Estonia doesn't have a bunch of dead weight nor does it have an underclass that suffers from health problems due to lifestyle choices anywhere near the level that the U.S. does.
We do have an ageing population and the health system is a drain for the economy of the country. Still, we "gladly" pay for it because that is our old people, our people who need help. And whenever we need it we will have it too.
If there ever is no enough money for the public system it'll also imply nobody will be making enough money for private plans either, so it'll all go to hell anyways. Until that day I'm quite satisfied with the free public health system.
And by the way, one can pay a bit more over here and get a private plan too, but all they do is treating you a bit faster than the public system - you basically buy "speed", not better care. When you have a serious problem they send you back to the public system. lol


is it free? Wow it´s amazing that estonian doctors work for free. What an altruist bunch.
Do you guys give them some rice and water to keep them alive at least or when they starve you change them?
There's a fundamental difference between working for a (more than)decent salary as doctors do in the public system and a private corporation, which only care for benefits, as with any other private company. You're missing the fact that public systems are not only non-profit organizations, but they run at a loss, as it should be if required.

[Óttar]

Yeah. Okay. At least I tried to provide evidence for why I think about doctors in general the way I do. On the other hand, you seem to think that your arguments need no more support than what you can conjure up from your imagination.:rolleyes:
You need Evidence! I am the fucking evidence! The negligent asshole who is responsible for my injury had a wife who died of ovarian cancer, and he was a fucking gynecologist for Gods' sake. :mad:

[Falkata]

As if most doctors were like those people. :rolleyes2: One does alternative medicine and one is a student idealist. When they get caught up in the system, they will be rooking people and trying to protect their own asses instead of taking responsibility for their negligence.

The above is just a sample of volunteers. It says nothing about the doctor who only cares about summering in the Hamptons, and buying the latest yacht while some kid gets Cerebral Palsy because he's out to lunch, and then he laughs all the way to the bank. Hippocratic Oath? More like Hypocrite's Oath.

What kind of monsters have you met? Do they eat the corpse after the kid die too? :confused:
My uncle is a private doctor and he cares about his pacients more than they do in the public healthcare. Not only because he´s a human and he cares more or less about people that he knows, but because he needs satisfied patients. After all, if the patients aren´t happy my uncle will not eat next month. If the patients in the public healthcare aren´t happy they can eat shit because the doctors will receive their salary anyway. And corporativism between the public doctors is really high.It´s basically impossible to send a doctor to jail

[Äike]

Estonia doesn't have a bunch of dead weight nor does it have an underclass that suffers from health problems due to lifestyle choices anywhere near the level that the U.S. does.

Really? We have a large bunch of Russian drug addicts. By percentage, Estonia is also the most HIV-infected country in Europe. Because of those Russian drug addicts. If I'm not mistaken, then over 90% of HIV-infected individuals speak Russian as their native language.

That's one of the reasons why I regard them as subhumans.


is it free? Wow it´s amazing that estonian doctors work for free. What an altruist bunch.
Do you guys give them some rice and water to keep them alive at least or when they starve you change them?

I guess it is funded by our taxes.

[Debaser11]

We do have an ageing population and the health system is a drain for the economy of the country. Still, we "gladly" pay for it because that is our old people, our people who need help. And whenever we need it we will have it too.
If there ever is no enough money for the public system it'll also imply nobody will be making enough money for private plans either, so it'll all go to hell anyways. Until that day I'm quite satisfied with the free public health system.
And by the way, one can pay a bit more over here and get a private plan too, but all they do is treating you a bit faster than the public system - you basically buy "speed", not better care. When you have a serious problem they send you back to the public system. lol


I like all this "we" talk. You know damn well that some people are paying for it much more than others. Stop making it sound like it's an equally collective effort. Your country is also not my country. I would never compare healthcare in Sweden to a U.S. public healthcare system even though I reject both on philosophical grounds.

[Debaser11]

Really? We have a large bunch of Russian drug addicts. By percentage, Estonia is also the most HIV-infected country in Europe. Because of those Russian drug addicts. If I'm not mistaken, then over 90% of HIV-infected individuals speak Russian as their native language.

That's one of the reasons why I regard them as subhumans.



I guess it is funded by our taxes.

That's true. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that we have more overall health problems in my country.

[Falkata]

There's a fundamental difference between working for a (more than)decent salary as doctors do in the public system and a private corporation, which only care for benefits, as with any other private company. You're missing the fact that public systems are not only non-profit organizations, but they run at a loss, as it should be if required.

Public companies work worse than private ones. It´s not an opinion, it´s an empirical fact. A public monopolist company is some serious shit for a country and we know it pretty good in Spain (Telefónica in the 90´s for example)


Do you know the time that a spanish public doctor can spend per pacient? Not more than 5 minutes. Do you know how long are the wait lists? A friend from Madrid broke his knee in May. He went to a public hospital and they told him that he would be operated at the end of september :eek: Obviously he went to a private one and now he has a private insurance (too late for him though) Do you think rich people go to the private hospitals in the US when they have a serious disease to have some holidays? They do it because they dont want to die in a damn endless wait list.
And other thing. If a private doctor (or any kind of private worker) make a mistake, he can be fired in a few days. Useless and lazy public workers are never fired unless they get crazy and shot somebody in the head.
And this makes a huge difference. Accommodated untochable workers VS workers who need to show everyday that they are worthy. I trust more in the second ones

[Falkata]

I guess it is funded by our taxes.

Then I guess your health care system is not free

[Grumpy Cat]

Day two of the biggest shitstorm on the forum. :D

Lol and it's all my fault

[Birka]

But of course. Libertarianism will for instance lead to income inequality as minimum wages, welfare and labour protection laws will be dropped. You will end up with a situation like the 19th century or what you will in India today with people working for a starvation wage and will be forced to buy their food at high prices at shops held by their own bosses and when they need assistance they will be left alone and sacked.

This is the jungle that pure Libertarianism will lead too.
There is nothing wrong with the idea of a free market but a pure free market will lead to freedom for a couple of rich folks and slavery for the many.

Where has "pure" Libertarianism ever been tried? It has not, nor has "pure" capitalism ever been tried. So, how can you say it will lead to such disasters as your claim?

[The Lawspeaker]

Where has "pure" Libertarianism ever been tried? It has not, nor has "pure" capitalism ever been tried. So, how can you say it will lead to such disasters as your claim?
The entire second half of the 19th century was a period of minarchism and it's effects can still be seen throughout Europe. Try England, try the Southern Netherlands and see it's effects.

When I have some time I will be happy to look up notes in Dutch books of those days for you but it's effects were awful.

[Oinakos Growion]

You know damn well that some people are paying for it much more than others. Stop making it sound like it's an equally collective effort
It could be better tuned of course. But I also have no trouble with some paying more than others. And Sweden is fine by me of course.
And I'm not comparing really. I'm just having a conversation trying to make my point and explaining my views. Meanwhile I hope we keep our system and even improve it, before some politician goes on privitazing it.
I call it "friendly exchange of ideas". It's the internet after all.


Public companies work worse than private ones. It´s not an opinion, it´s an empirical fact. Do you know the time that a spanish public doctor has per pacient? Not more than 5 minutes. Do you know how long are the wait lists?
I do. And in my experience it's not such a big disaster. I guess it has to do with the saturation of the specific location. Also, the "5 minutes" thing is an average based on the fact that most times is old folks going in there for routine prescriptions. That takes less than 5 minutes. But if you require more time they'll be with you for as long as needed and often refer you to a specialist if it takes too long.
Then again, they prioritise some stuff over other. If you need something urgent you'll be rushed in and they'll find whatever you need ASAP. If you have a knee injury you'll obviously have to wait a bit longer because it'll be considered "non life-threatening".
And in Galicia you wait less than in other countries. When abroad I once was told I had to wait 18 (!) months to get some simple tests or else pay 500 euros - they wouldn't care if I lived or died, they wanted money. I flew back home and had it done in no time, free. Sorted. That's what I'm talking about.
The only reason why private hospitals here are faster is because they're not saturated, but if everybody had private insurance you'd have to wait too. There was a trend in my hometown to join some fancy private hospital when it first opened. People quickly opted out because the hospital would take the money but simply couldn't cope with all the "customers". Just an example.


If a private doctor (or any kind of private worker) make a mistake, he can be fired in a few days. Useless and lazy public workers are never fired unless they get crazy and shot somebody in the head
Public doctors are scrutinised. Of course, the system could work better and some doctors need some asskicking, but you know that over here you can choose your doctor. If you don't like the guy you can choose somebody else. Public doctors with few patients are often investigated and moved somewhere else.


Do you think rich people go to the private hospitals in the US when they have a serious disease to have some holidays? They do it because they dont want to die in a damn endless wait list
Not everybody is rich. The point is to care for those who are just average folk who deserve a decent health system, regardless of what they may need. A country should invest in health because a healthy population is good for the country. It is a national priority.
And remember that is not rare for the social security to send people to hospitals abroad if they can't be cured here and those hospitals have the required machines, etc. Free.
Honestly, the system here gives me, above all, peace of mind, even if it's far from perfect. Then again, what is perfect? ;)


Public companies work worse than private ones. It´s not an opinion, it´s an empirical fact
If that was true the market would be a perfect self-regulating entity. It is not.
And let's remember that public companies belong to the public (us).
What's the obsession with selling them when they're not doing ok instead of forcing their improvement? We should be demanding that.


(Telefónica in the 90´s for example)
ah c'mon. Telefónica is still shit :D
And they still benefit from their advantageous starting point back in the day (the other companies are complaining about that up to this day, and they got a point).

[The Lawspeaker]

I found this in a Dutch history book (Geschiedenis der Lage Landen by Jaap ter Haar. Inval der Fransen tot de Twintigste Eeuw (Het Groene Boek)- page 212 to 215 as translated from Dutch).

(Following a poem by Multituli)

"Ooh God there is no God !" do those words also echo in the heads of the working class, that without any hope of improvement lifes on the very edge of existence ? Child mortality rate in South Holland (province): 309 out of every 1000 babies (and what remains of that will for a part fall to prostitution and alcoholism).

"Why the hell should we have with yet another child !" Exhausted, desperate parents neglect their children on purpose ! They hope that their child would die soon:

"Another angel up in heaven and a mouth less to feed!" The cries of the baby tear through the heart of the mother. Please let it be quick ! When the little one has died, the father claims the money for the funeral of the insurance and drinks himself into a stupor.

General Practitioner Van Hengel in Hilversum is facing another child death every week for which the parents have not asked his assistance. (he wrote):

"The children die after a lifespan of 20 weeks. "Our Dear Lord" the father said "has blessed me with the twin. Now I will get 16 guilders off the funeral insurance and I can pay the rent over my potato field..."

In this period of engeltjesmakerij ("angel making") babies die so the rest of the family can life.

Multatuli accurately described the expenses of a sawmill assistant labourer that has three children. His weekly pay is 6 guilders (which is more then most workers receive):


Bread :
ƒ 1.52 1/2

For the ingredients of the lunch (5 cups of potatoes or 2 of peas or 2 pounds of flour):
ƒ 1.40

Salt:
ƒ 0.07 1/2

Butter (1/2 ounce a day) - (margarine was not yet invented):
ƒ 0.35

Fat (1/2 ouce a day):
ƒ 0.35

Pepper, vinegar, mustard, flour for sauce:
ƒ 0.15

Coffee (2 ounces a week):
ƒ 0.26

Molasses:
ƒ 0.03

Milk (1/2 jug a day):
ƒ 0.21

Buttermilk:
ƒ 0.20 1/2

Oil (for lighting):
ƒ 0.09

Soap, starch, powder-blue, washing water:
ƒ 0.20

Yarn, strings, wool:
ƒ 0.20

Funeral fund (forward payment):
ƒ 0.18

School money for a single child:
ƒ 0.10

Tobacco, shaving and a glass of gin:
ƒ 0.40



Total:
ƒ 5.77 1/2


For meat, for clothing, shoes, medical assistance, for the rent or firewood, for furniture or relaxation or holidays for the children this well paid worker has... ƒ0. 22 1/2 a week.

"Knock those fucking doors down !" In desperate rage starving people try to obtain food by use of force. Others become thieves or join marauding gangs.

"Your money or your life !" In impoverished areas like the Loosdrechtse Heide, the Veluwe, or in Drenthe they leap from ambushes and attack when a stagecoach passes by. Plenty of opportunities: in most villages there is only one policeman at the beat - even though mobile columns of the military police keep the pressure on them.
Also in the cities police forces are small. And they have their hands full in clearing the streets from beggars. A lot of policemen turn the other way but some of the more hardline police officers have little patience:

"Come on.. we're off to the police station !"
Without even as much as a trial many of those unfortunates are shipped to the veenkolonies (NOTE: where peat was dug up) in Drenthe. The women from those beggar colonies can sometimes work as a nurse in a local hospital. Their wage ? ƒ 1.48 a week and sometimes a little bit more when the clothes of the dead are being sold. In the Binnengasthuis (former hospital) in Amsterdam prostitutes and thieves and the alcoholists "nurse" the patients. Thanks to the inspiring example set by Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War (1853-1855) the worst of the worst situations are also now slowly ebbing away in Dutch hospitals.
Filled with idealism and compassion "dignified" (NOTE: of a better class) young women also start tending the suffering human beings. Jeltje de Bosch Kemper establishes the Witte Kruis (a former mutual healthcare organisation) and slowly the job of nurse changes into a respectable and noble profession.

[Austin]

It isn't so much a black and white issue for me issue wise. I'd be in favor of every European-lineage person being given free health-care or the right to it in the West.

It is when masses of drug emaciated, poverty stricken third world immigrants/illegals start to use and abuse the system due to not contributing to the society that I then say okay no this won't work and is unrealistic but a nice idea.

Ironically it is you Western European nations that tout your universal health care systems that will be the first to be forced into cutting them altogether due to this reality of noncontributing freeloaders weighing down and collapsing the system from within.

[The Lawspeaker]

And ooh... employees could force people (at the price of being laid off) to buy goods held at their shops ("gedwongen winkelnering", "forced buying" or "forced shopping") only at extortionate prices of course.

No minimum wage, no medical care, no assistance and only rights for the rich. Not in my country. Screw that kind of capitalism. We should go for democracy instead.

[Birka]

The entire second half of the 19th century was a period of minarchism and it's effects can still be seen throughout Europe. Try England, try the Southern Netherlands and see it's effects.




May be true, but no where near pure capitalism or pure libertarianism. You are making statements without evidence. As soon as governments make laws regulating any trade or banking, there is no longer true capitalism.

[The Lawspeaker]

May be true, but no where near pure capitalism or pure libertarianism. You are making statements without evidence. As soon as governments make laws regulating any trade or banking, there is no longer true capitalism.
^ Read what I wrote earlier. Those were in the days when there was no real regulation.

[Falkata]

But what´s the point? That people in the XIX were poorer? Sure , we live better know in the 2010. We have better technology, better medicine and we dont have 12 children that we can´t feed. If every worker nowadays had 10 kids like they had before the public system would collapse too.
But it has nothing to do with the system that we have. In the next century, if nothing catastrophic happens we will be better than nowadays for sure.
Anyway, the XIX century system is not what we can call libertarianism. The system was completely corrupted and economic freedom didnt exist at all. The population and good exchanges between countries or even regions were highly restricted, it was a super protectionist system opposed to liberalism. Wars and colonizations payed by the gov (people taxes) were common (this is antiliberal too) as well as private and public monopolies When some powerful groups/families/companies can influence the State and impose their conditions like it happened frequently in those times, that´s not liberalism neither.

[Cato]

Much individualism, here in America anyway, stems from being repeatedly sponged off of by those not willing to fend for themselves. There's only so much a person can take before the walls are built--particularly by those who ask nothing themselves.

Amen brother. Many Euros have a strong collectivist mentality that's a holdover from Marxian or Hitlerian infiltration, har-har.

Odd, so many Euros embrace the ravings of a godless Jew named Marx and yet reject the Bible.

[The Lawspeaker]

But what´s the point? That people in the XIX were poorer? Sure , we live better know in the 2010. We have better technology, better medicine and we dont have 12 children that we can´t feed.
But it has nothing to do with the system that we have. In the next century, if we nothing catastrophic happen we will be better than nowadays for sure.
Anyway, the XIX century system is not what we can call libertarianism. The system was completely corrupted and economic freedom didnt exist at all. The population and good exchanges between countries or even regions were highly restricted, it was a super protectionist system opposed to liberalism. Wars and colonizations payed by the gov (people taxes) were common (this is antiliberal too) as well as private and public monopolies When some powerful groups/families/companies can influence the State and impose their conditions like it happened frequently in those times, that´s not liberalism neither.

1. They got so many children because there were no old age pensions or any form of social protection. Poor people did not have the vote.

2. There were no regulations whatsoever except for tariffs and taxes.

3. A small circle of people basically ran the show. Yet again: because there were no regulations there were no anti-trust laws that could have blocked it.
And capitalism.. like communism is a monopolistic system. We see it here that everytime something gets privatized there is no competition but those that take over the privatized businesses make agreements amongst themselves on the prices to charge.

It's time to forget about the beautiful theories of Austrian Economics and look at the cold hard facts: it's a system that should never be implemented. If you look at some of it's proponents like Friedman's Chicago Boys that were involved or at least supportive of the overthrow of a democratically elected regime (how wrong that regime may have been) and the subsequent subjugation of a nation (while the same thing was happening right next door in Argentina) then you would understand that capitalism's "free market" is not free at all and does not correspond with the ideals of democracy not much more then what communism does.

[San Galgano]

Mate, save this:

The population and good exchanges between countries or even regions were highly restricted

You basically made a photo shot of the 21th century.;)

Wars and colonizations payed by the gov (people taxes) were common (this is antiliberal too) as well as private and public monopolies When some powerful groups/families/companies can influence the State and impose their conditions like it happened frequently in those times, that´s not liberalism neither

[Loki]

Food, clean water, and shelter are probably more important than healthcare. Why should people have to pay for those essential services?

In the capitalist mind, billions upon billions spent on military hardware is more important than essential healthcare. It is immoral. I'm not even talking about the trillions spent on bailing out the banks in America. But no, people moan about healthcare spending. Priorities, people ... :rolleyes2:

[Cato]

That's the theory. What was the real deal like ?
Either go to America or visit the old slums that dot Europe.

So, Americans are slum-dwellers? :eek:

[The Lawspeaker]

So, Americans are slum-dwellers? :eek:
Yes - as a matter of fact: millions of Americans are. Check out your main cities. Check out the millions that are unemployed or unable to pay for necessary stuff like medical care or food on the table. I have got some news for you: America is no democracy. It's an oligarchy.

[Cato]

Yes. Check out your main cities. Check out the millions that are unemployed or unable to pay for neccesary stuff like medical care or food on the table. I have got some news for you: America is no democracy. It's an oligarchy.


Oh, well then welcome to your own future in Europe. I hope you enjoy it. :) All of your great cities like London, Paris, and Rome will soon be nigger-ridden slums like our own Washington D.C., just get with the times man. :)

[The Lawspeaker]

Oh, well then welcome to your own future in Europe. I hope you enjoy it. :) All of your great cities like London, Paris, and Rome will soon be nigger-ridden slums, just get with the times man. :)
Kick those out and social problems will be likely to be extinct in 20 years afterwards because the created poverty both the social democrats and capitalism (yes.. they have proven a deadly combination here) will be fought with more vigour and more money.
If you kick your Africans and Latino's out large parts will still be hellholes.

In large parts of continental Northwestern Europe before the immigrants came along and the New Left took over poverty around the onset of the 1970s was nearly extinct.

[Falkata]

[FONT="Georgia"]Yes - as a matter of fact: millions of Americans are. Check out your main cities. Check out the millions that are unemployed or unable to pay for necessary stuff like medical care or food on the table. I have got some news for you: America is no democracy. It's an oligarchy.


Is it a Spain a democracy? First new that I´ve. Last time i was in America (last month) in California they were talking about voting yes or not to legalize the marihuana. That´s closer to democracy than the system that we have here and in most of Europe. And they are 300 millions of people, not a few ones like the european countries so it´s even more impressive.
Anyway if I could choose I´d prefer to be ruled by some millionaire businessmen than by our retarded and corrupted politicians.

[The Lawspeaker]

Is it a Spain a democracy? First new that I´ve. Last time i was in America (last month) in California they were talking about voting yes or not to legalize the marihuana. That´s closer to democracy than the system that we have here and in most of Europe. And they are 300 millions of people, not a few ones like the european countries so it´s even more impressive.
Anyway if I could choose I´d prefer to be ruled by some millionaire businessmen than by our retarded and corrupted politicians.
Who is just as corrupt and will lead you in a similar way.. with even less freedoms. :thumbs up Way too go because that guy will bring in even more immigrants just to depress wages even more ! Ooh and of course: the first things banned for you will be trade unions, freedom of assembly and of course your right to vote.

Say hello to the Chicago Boys then !

[Cato]

Kick those out and social problems will be likely to be extinct of 20 years afterwards because the created poverty both the social democrats and capitalism (yes.. they have proven a deadly combination here) will be fought with more vigour and more money.
If you kick your Africans and Latino's out large parts will still be hellholes.

In large parts of continental Northwestern Europe before the immigrants came along and the New Left took over poverty around the onset of the 1970s was nearly extinct.

The U.S. used to have immigration laws on the books limited immigration from non-white countries, but this was back in the early part of the 20th century, around the time of President Wilsdon at the very least.

[Falkata]

In the capitalist mind, billions upon billions spent on military hardware is more important than essential healthcare. It is immoral. I'm not even talking about the trillions spent on bailing out the banks in America. But no, people moan about healthcare spending. Priorities, people ... :rolleyes2:

Wars or helping private companies (in a selective way which is even worse) are against liberalism too. I´m opposed to both of them so dont count me in that group ;)

[The Lawspeaker]

The U.S. used to have immigration laws on the books limited immigration from non-white countries, but this was back in the early part of the 20th century, around the time of President Wilsdon at the very least.

Even if you get rid of the immigrants there is still a piss poor social structure with many people in poverty or in debt.

[Falkata]

Who is just as corrupt and will lead you in a similar way.. with even less freedoms. :thumbs up Way too go because that guy will bring in even more immigrants just to depress wages even more ! Ooh and of course: the first things banned for you will be trade unions, freedom of assembly and of course your right to vote.

Say hello to the Chicago Boys then !


My right to vote means nothing for me nowadays. This is a stupid circus between 2 parties and i dont wanna participate. I bet most of the people around here would sell their votes for no more than 200€.
At least rich millionaires dont need to steal people money to be rich because they are already. Mediocre politicians who got the power being middle class at most and leave it being rich do it.

[The Lawspeaker]

My right to vote means nothing for me nowadays. This is a stupid circus of 2 parties and i dont wanna participate. I bet most of the people around here would send their votes for no more than 200€.
At least rich millionaires dont need to steal people money to be rich because they are already. Mediocre politicians who got the power being middle class at most and leave it being rich do it.
Rich people always want more.. and they want it from you.

[Falkata]

1. They got so many children because there were no old age pensions or any form of social protection.


I dont get this btw. What´s the relation between old age pensions and having or not many kids?
I mean, if every normal worker around here nowadays who earns 1500€/month had 12 children all this public system would collapse.

[The Lawspeaker]

I dont get this btw. What´s the relation between old age pensions and having or not many kids?
I mean, if every normal worker around here nowadays who earns 1500€/month had 12 children all this public system would collapse.
A simple one: since there were no old age pensions getting more children that survive (vs high child mortality) means the children can take care of their ailing, old parents by the time they are adult themselves.

Sounds familiar? Yes.. that's why we are being outbreeded as far as it concerns the Third World. We have our old age pensions and our welfare state.. they have their children. They now bring their habits here and eventhough it isn't needed anymore they continue to do it because this is what they are used too and when it's about Islam the religious component of conquest creeps in too.

[Austin]

In the capitalist mind, billions upon billions spent on military hardware is more important than essential healthcare. It is immoral. I'm not even talking about the trillions spent on bailing out the banks in America. But no, people moan about healthcare spending. Priorities, people ... :rolleyes2:



We have people who live off welfare and sell drugs out the kitchen window while we work all day and pay for their cigarette/beer runs on the local gas station/grocer via welfare checks.Most these people are non-white who we fund through our hard work. Why should we care whether such people get health care or quality health care on our tab? They don't work and they don't speak English or share our culture.

Every single time I am at a gas station there is a Mexican/black with their welfare check buying cartons of cigarettes or boxes of beer, funded by working peoples tax dollars.

So yes I support my nations military going into those third world countries and killing as many of them as possible, yes I fully support this. When I read a news story about 20 dying in a bomb in Pakistan I wonder why it isn't 200 instead of 20. When I see stories of African on African rape and massacre nothing but joy fills my heart. I want India and Pakistan to nuke each other, tomorrow preferably.

I like seeing high casualty news stories in third world countries. I enjoy destructive third world floods and earthquakes and hope for more of them.

I like it that whites still receive better health care in the U.S. than any other people. I want it to stay that way. I'd be more content paying for an eradication force than for universal health care for minorities.

What you never hear in European media is that most whites in the U.S. HAVE quality health care, it is the minorities which don't.

[Great Dane]

The healthcare just sucks there, I guess. Here in England the NHS service is very good in my experience. And TOTALLY FREE. Screw capitalism, free essential healthcare for all is a RIGHT in the civilized world, you shouldn't have to pay for it. :coffee:But it is not free, someone pays for it. Contrary to what many foreigners believe no one goes without healthcare in America. Most hospitals are non-profit, ran by various churches or community groups. They treat the indigent and there are government programs for the poor like medicaid and medicare for the elderly. What makes people mad about healthcare is the cost of private insurance. And the ridiculous markups the hospitals charge for some items. One of the most famous medical centers in the world is the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. If free healthcare in the rest of the world is so great, why do people who can afford it come to hospitals in America, like the Mayo Clinic, for treatment?

[Susi]

That's true. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that we have more overall health problems in my country.

If you wanted to hear my proof about my arguments re: doctors and health conditions... I will reveal my occupations? I work in a medical shop and as a medical geographer (in the capacity of a research assistant). So what do I do all day? I see how doctors treat me as a clerk. Some of them are nice, considerate and respectful but many of them are not. Just because I am a clerk does not mean I deserve to be treated with disrespect, especially if I am being asked to help. Further, in my research job, I spent 8 hours/day looking at healthcare data from around the world, especially on spending (public and private), mortality/prevalence/incidence of emerging/chronic diseases and their geographic patterns pertaining to this spending.

:coffee: But I suppose 4 years of experience in both jobs means nothing?


Odd, so many Euros embrace the ravings of a godless Jew named Marx and yet reject the Bible.

I reject the Bible not because of Marx, but because of my own (heathen) opinion. I've read it. It didn't appeal.

My politics and religion are separate.


Oh, well then welcome to your own future in Europe. I hope you enjoy it. :) All of your great cities like London, Paris, and Rome will soon be nigger-ridden slums like our own Washington D.C., just get with the times man. :)

There's many differences in the geographies and master plans of American, British and Continental cities (even within regions). I doubt this will happen in a well-planned city or town... unfortunately, many American towns are not very well planned (though the conurbations of Britain leave something to be desired).


But it is not free, someone pays for it.

We've been over this I think before? Taxation pays for it and it comes from everyone.

[Cato]

In the capitalist mind, billions upon billions spent on military hardware is more important than essential healthcare. It is immoral. I'm not even talking about the trillions spent on bailing out the banks in America. But no, people moan about healthcare spending. Priorities, people ... :rolleyes2:

http://www.crestock.com/uploads/blog/2009/propaganda-parodies/6-might-makes-right.jpg

He who has the might, makes the rules, and if you don't like it...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=That's%20the%20Bottom%20Line

All of these pathetic notions about equality and governmental niceness can go right out the window. As Loki, you should know that there's no such thing as an equal playing field, eh? :eek:

[Debaser11]

It could be better tuned of course. But I also have no trouble with some paying more than others. And Sweden is fine by me of course.
And I'm not comparing really. I'm just having a conversation trying to make my point and explaining my views. Meanwhile I hope we keep our system and even improve it, before some politician goes on privitazing it.
I call it "friendly exchange of ideas". It's the internet after all.

Well, that's great that you have no trouble paying more. Ever heard of a concept called charity? There are plenty of medical charities you can donate all that extra money of yours to in order to sleep better at night. And best of all, you won't have to forcibly take other people's money to make a difference! I never said you were comparing my country to another country. My point was simply that distinctions should be made for practical reasons (if not moral ones). Despite my annoyance with the majority of the viewpoints expressed on this thread, my view about how ideas should be exchanged on the internet matches your view.


In the capitalist mind, billions upon billions spent on military hardware is more important than essential healthcare. It is immoral. I'm not even talking about the trillions spent on bailing out the banks in America. But no, people moan about healthcare spending. Priorities, people ... :rolleyes2:

I remember you used to have a Nietzsche avatar. Do you take the man's ideas seriously or were you being ironic? You equate a lack of altruism with immorality. It's very easy to understand why any student of said philosopher would not equate the two in the manner you're doing.

[Bloodeagle]

Social programs help to define a nations civility! The greedy capitalistic war machine that is now America has much to learn in the civility department.

Get this:
I am a Medi-Cal recipient. Will the state take my house when I die?
The State of California does not take away anyone’s home per se. Your home can, however, be subject to an estate claim after your death. For example, your home may be an exempt asset while you are alive and is not counted for Medi-Cal eligibility purposes. (SO SELL IT WHEN YOU GET OLD, INVEST
THE MONEY IN YOUR CHILDREN's BUSINESS IDEAS, in buying them
a NICE LITTLE FARM (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eastrology/ssacrash.html). ) However, if the home is still in your name
when you die, the state can make a claim against your estate for the amount of the Medi-Cal benefits paid or the value of the estate, whichever is less. So that heart operation and convalescence? Adios casita!

California’s definition of “estate” includes such previously immune assets
as living trusts, joint tenancies, tenancies in common and life estates.
Many consumers place their property into living trusts, thinking that this
will protect it from an estate claim. It does not. The state can still make
a claim against property held in a living trust, joint tenancy or tenancies
in common, as long as the beneficiary’s name is still on the property at
the time of death.

[Debaser11]

If you wanted to hear my proof about my arguments re: doctors and health conditions... I will reveal my occupations? I work in a medical shop and as a medical geographer (in the capacity of a research assistant). So what do I do all day? I see how doctors treat me as a clerk. Some of them are nice, considerate and respectful but many of them are not. Just because I am a clerk does not mean I deserve to be treated with disrespect, especially if I am being asked to help. Further, in my research job, I spent 8 hours/day looking at healthcare data from around the world, especially on spending (public and private), mortality/prevalence/incidence of emerging/chronic diseases and their geographic patterns pertaining to this spending.

:coffee: But I suppose 4 years of experience in both jobs means nothing?

I didn't say I wanted proof from you. I don't think you even know what qualifies as "proof." Your personal anecdotes are hardly proof of how of doctors as a whole think. What if I found someone who worked in a similar position who thought differently of doctors? How would I weigh their evaluation against yours? This is why personal anecdotes are NEVER sound evidence.

Let's revisit your claim:

"Doctors do not dedicate themselves to helping people. Doctors dedicate themselves to the idea of being better than everyone else (at least most of them). To be a doctor involves a lot of rote memorisation (have you ever looked at the licensing exams?), not proper inference and the general strategy is that "it will be the most common thing". I work with doctors. Trust me."

That's a pretty large brush you're using there. You're not even qualifying your statement with "I think" or "In my experience." I'm just somehow supposed to trust you (again, your ridiculous words) that this is how doctors are by nature despite the fact that my friend's mother is a nurse, my pediatrician was a saint, I've had good experiences with other doctors, and I've seen examples of doctors doing things well beyond their call of duty. Do you see why this kind of anecdote is laughably pathetic for the claim you're making? Anecdotes and "proof" should not be uttered together in the same breath.

Before you accuse me of doing the same, I simply stated that I THOUGHT most doctors were motivated by good. I'm not making the broad generalization about doctors that you're doing simply because I work with some of them at a particular clinic. I made a statement and I supported it with the proper evidence. Your sweeping generalizations don't seem to be at all supported with any sort of evidence.

And you seem like a left-leaning type. Yet you don't believe in giving people like doctors the benefit of doubt? Oh, that's right. That only applies to criminals on trial for rape and murder. We can't give the benefit of the doubt about motives to people who actually save lives.:rolleyes2:

[Groenewolf]

Sounds familiar? Yes.. that's why we are being outbreeded as far as it concerns the Third World. We have our old age pensions and our welfare state.. they have their children. They now bring their habits here and eventhough it isn't needed anymore they continue to do it because this is what they are used too and when it's about Islam the religious component of conquest creeps in too.


You do know that the welfare-state pensions are funded by the younger working generations? It is in essence the same system as before, only the direct link between those retired and the younger generations have been obscured by the middle-person of the state. That there now so much talk about the problems that will come when the baby-boom generation will retire. The system will no longer work because there are to few young workers to keep paying for it. Also one of the arguments used for the need to bring in more third world immigrants, they must work to pay for your pension.

So with the present system you have the choice of either encouraging the native to have more children to help support the current pension-system, or high level of foreign labor that would change completely the demographic make up of the country.

[Murphy]

I remember you used to have a Nietzsche avatar. Do you take the man's ideas seriously or were you being ironic? You equate a lack of altruism with immorality. It's very easy to understand why any student of said philosopher would not equate the two in the manner you're doing.

He only had the avatar to wind me up ;).

[Oinakos Growion]

Anyway if I could choose I´d prefer to be ruled by some millionaire businessmen than by our retarded and corrupted politicians.
Oh but... you are :D
Discussing what is "democracy" or how it should work might deserve its own thread ;)

[Phil75231]

Acadian, if you want to pay US$130 (about 1/2 day's salary for a typical white collar worker) just for the most basic simple of doctor's visits....or a baby delivery costing about 2 months of that said salary....You go right ahead :D !

[Birka]

In the capitalist mind, billions upon billions spent on military hardware is more important than essential healthcare. It is immoral. I'm not even talking about the trillions spent on bailing out the banks in America. But no, people moan about healthcare spending. Priorities, people ... :rolleyes2:

You are confusing capitalists with neo cons. Neo cons are not true capitalists, they prefer their brand of government, which then pollutes true capitalism.

A libertarian, even an anarchist capitalist tribalist is a capitalist, who does not want endless war around the world. Look up Ron Paul, read.

We don't want endless war, and we do not want endless welfare and free healthcare.

[Austin]

If you wanted to hear my proof about my arguments re: doctors and health conditions... I will reveal my occupations? I work in a medical shop and as a medical geographer (in the capacity of a research assistant). So what do I do all day? I see how doctors treat me as a clerk. Some of them are nice, considerate and respectful but many of them are not. Just because I am a clerk does not mean I deserve to be treated with disrespect, especially if I am being asked to help. Further, in my research job, I spent 8 hours/day looking at healthcare data from around the world, especially on spending (public and private), mortality/prevalence/incidence of emerging/chronic diseases and their geographic patterns pertaining to this spending.

:coffee: But I suppose 4 years of experience in both jobs means nothing?



I reject the Bible not because of Marx, but because of my own (heathen) opinion. I've read it. It didn't appeal.

My politics and religion are separate.



There's many differences in the geographies and master plans of American, British and Continental cities (even within regions). I doubt this will happen in a well-planned city or town... unfortunately, many American towns are not very well planned (though the conurbations of Britain leave something to be desired).



We've been over this I think before? Taxation pays for it and it comes from everyone.

No offense but the reason doctors treat you as a clerk is because you are a clerk....................................

You should also know that when super rich Canadians get sick they come to this place called Houston Texas Medical Center and get their health care with us just like all the rest do such as Saudi Sheiks, Indian Maharajahs, and every other super rich person does, because the U.S. has the best advanced quality health care in the world, especially in Texas.

[Debaser11]

No offense but the reason doctors treat you as a clerk is because you are a clerk....................................

You should also know that when super rich Canadians get sick they come to this place called Houston Texas Medical Center and get their health care with us just like all the rest do such as Saudi Sheiks, Indian Maharajahs, and every other super rich person does, because the U.S. has the best advanced quality health care in the world, especially in Texas.


I live in Houston. This is true. The Medical Center (even more so than the rest of Houston) is like the terminal at Dubai International Airport.

[MagnaLaurentia]

Oh yeah another piece of hilarity. My forms say my native language is French, they told me to wait till the radioed in a French-speaking nurse. I'M SPEAKING ENGLISH TO YOU!

Just stitch up my damn hand and call it a day.

Sorry I'm just bitter about wasting 5 hours of my day off. :mad:

C'est tu pas beau vivre dans un pays bilingue (sarcasme évidement) ! hahaha :)

Au Québec, c'est aussi l'enfer dans les salles d'attentes! Mais je suis jeune et en santé et je fais attention à moi donc je n'y vais jamais à l'hopital! Je me réjouis déjà de voir tous ces baby-boomers creuvé dans leurs lits d'hopital ou dans les salles d'attentes... ils ont abusés du système et on fait venir plein d'immigrants pour les "soigner"... eh ben non... ils sont sur le BS ou conduissent des taxis vos médecins africains...

[Aemma]

But who foots the bill so others can get free health care? Guess how much in Social Security is taken out of my paycheck so that old farts and deadbeats can get free healthcare? Quite a fair amount, and I'm no rich man.

If Social Security wasn't taken out of my pay every two weeks, well, I'd be able to afford a modest health care plan of my own. :grumpy: Fuck this free nonsense, you have to pay for something if you want it badly enough.

Well there's really no such thing as "free" health care, eh? Somebody's always footing the bill. It's just that the resources are allocated differently here. :p

[Peasant]

You should also know that when super rich Canadians get sick they come to this place called Houston Texas Medical Center and get their health care with us just like all the rest do such as Saudi Sheiks, Indian Maharajahs, and every other super rich person does, because the U.S. has the best advanced quality health care in the world, especially in Texas.

Maybe, but the world isn't all rich people is it? Better to have good healthcare, instead of not being able to afford it at all.

[Aemma]

Now that is much more sensible at least. It stands to reason that if you have people who are capable of creating a healthy state like Canada, then such a government-run system could work well provided that the culture and values of the country remain healthy. However, if Canada is going to keep accepting everybody (no matter their background) into its borders, then the weakness of this system is quickly exposed for what it is.

I can appreciate what you're saying D11. I guess the problem is that our politicians figure that we're not procreating at a steady enough pace in order to make our country a viable hub of economic activity, so we, uhmm, import humans to make more cogs and make a bigger wheel for the economic machine to function more adequately. :shrug:

[Grumpy Cat]

Maybe, but the world isn't all rich people is it? Better to have good healthcare, instead of not being able to afford it at all.

I agree. But unfortunately the free system in Canada discriminates against the poor. Whenever you hear of people dying waiting for care (and these are usually the stories American right wingers are all over like flies on dog poop), they are usually poor and also often minorities. Upper and middle class Canadians get excellent care.

So basically this means American right wingers who usually hate the poor and minorities all of a sudden like them when they die waiting for a medical procedure in Canada. :coffee:

On the inverse, poor Americans come to Canada. Hell, even Sarah Palin did when she fell on hard times.

[Debaser11]

Maybe, but the world isn't all rich people is it? Better to have good healthcare, instead of not being able to afford it at all.

No, it's not. There are people out there who are dumb. They don't manage their money. They don't plan ahead. They don't take care of their bodies. I don't think someone who happens to earn more money (usually because they worked hard to apply themselves at something) has any responsibility to make sure these other people don't keel over.

And some of you pro-government healthcare people are making it sound like you have to hang with Robin Leach to be able to afford it. It's expensive, but there are reasons for this (that I can go further into) that are not the fault of the people in the healthcare industry in many instances. Forcing everyone into the same net will not make these expenses evaporate. Market laws don't just change because you make something public.

As Pallamedes said earlier, there are no free lunches. I really don't understand why some of you have a hard time with this.

[Bloodeagle]

I agree. But unfortunately the free system in Canada discriminates against the poor. Whenever you hear of people dying waiting for care (and these are usually the stories American right wingers are all over like flies on dog poop), they are usually poor and also often minorities. Upper and middle class Canadians get excellent care.

So basically this means American right wingers who usually hate the poor and minorities all of a sudden like them when they die waiting for a medical procedure in Canada.

On the inverse, poor Americans come to Canada. Hell, even Sarah Palin did when she fell on hard times.
Who is this Sarah Palin everyone keeps mentioning? :D
I bet old Sarah would be the first president in U.S. history to outlaw such aforementioned trips to Canada.

[Grumpy Cat]

Who is this Sarah Palin everyone keeps mentioning? :D
I bet old Sarah would be the first president in U.S. history to outlaw such aforementioned trips to Canada.

Yeah. Which makes her a big fat hypocrite!

I'd post a link of stories of her going to Canada but all I have is an iPhone right now and posting links is a pain... So remind me in two weeks.

[Peasant]

http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARxjQ3IRqvg

:rolleyes:

[Aemma]

No offense but the reason doctors treat you as a clerk is because you are a clerk....................................

You should also know that when super rich Canadians get sick they come to this place called Houston Texas Medical Center and get their health care with us just like all the rest do such as Saudi Sheiks, Indian Maharajahs, and every other super rich person does, because the U.S. has the best advanced quality health care in the world, especially in Texas.

And you should also know that many many many (did I mention many?) healthcare workers from nurses to physicians to technologists in the medical field that work in your great state are Canadian? They were all lured by you folks with promises of great opportunities back in the 90's. Nothing sadder than a bunch of ungrateful Canadians getting their training in this country and then owing it something (for a while at least, until they have at least repaid their goddamn students loans and not defaulting on them!), making a beeline for your country all in effort to make more cash.

You can keep those Canadians. I truly don't want them back here.

So don't be so goddamn smug about it, Austin.

[Debaser11]

More than a few posters seem to accept the philosophy that if we don't reduce suffering, we're immoral. That's what this healthcare debate comes down to at it's most basic level, no? It's a utilitarian argument. Certainly we are not all maximizing our efforts every minute of every day to reduce suffering. In fact, we avoid doing these things because we're human. We go the movies instead of working at the soup kitchen. We hang with our friends instead of helping with a clothing donation. We post on Apricity instead of volunteering time at a blood bank. There's ALWAYS work to be done but is not addressing this suffering in order to live for yourself immoral? Are these aforementioned activities all immoral acts? I certainly don't think so. Just like I don't think someone wanting to keep a few extra bucks THEY earned to do with it what THEY please (which may even be something charitable in its own right) is immoral.

I can just as easily flip this all around and say it's immoral to live off of somebody as well or to promote a system that encourages some to live off of the work of others, particularly when the resources are forcibly taken from other people who've earned it through legitimate enterprise in a free country. Yes, the U.S. and Western Europe have oligarcical strands, but get real. Most people that would have to pay even more of their own money to support this system would not belong to that elite club so even evoking that is disingenuous.

I'm not trying to discourage charity, but I disagree with a moral system that tells me that I'm immoral if I'm not maximizing my efforts to reduce suffering. The logic some of you are applying to argue for the necessity of government healthcare follows this same line of reasoning.

[Aemma]

No, it's not. There are people out there who are dumb. They don't manage their money. They don't plan ahead. They don't take care of their bodies. I don't think someone who happens to earn more money (usually because they worked hard to apply themselves at something) has any responsibility to make sure the these other people don't keel over.

And some of you pro-government healthcare people are making it sound like you have to hang with Robin Leach to be able to afford it. It's expensive, but there are reasons for this (that I can go further into) that are not the fault of the people in the healthcare industry in many instances. Forcing everyone into the same net will not make these expenses evaporate. Market laws don't just change because you make something public.

As Pallamedes said earlier, there are no free lunches. I really don't understand why some of you have a hard time with this.

Well, it's not rocket science whatever system you look at. One is government funded (which means the taxpayers pay for it) and the other one is privately funded (which also means that people who are taxpayers for other things or services pay for it except they don't share any of it.) The former is based on a philosophy of redistribution of wealth whereas the latter is based on I'll keep it all to myself and "Screw the other guy!".

I dunno. I kind of like the sharing bit personally. If I'm a have I like to give some to the have-nots and would like to think that one day *if* and when I should become a have-not then my fellow citizens won't begrudge me having a run of tough luck in life and will want to share a bit of their own have with me too. It all evens out in the wash in the end.

It's a communal way of thinking as opposed to an individualistic way of thinking. It's as good an approach as any if you ask me. But it's not for everyone. Which is why I am a Canadian I suppose and why you are not. :)

[Bloodeagle]

No, it's not. There are people out there who are dumb. They don't manage their money. They don't plan ahead. They don't take care of their bodies. I don't think someone who happens to earn more money (usually because they worked hard to apply themselves at something) has any responsibility to make sure the these other people don't keel over.

And some of you pro-government healthcare people are making it sound like you have to hang with Robin Leach to be able to afford it. It's expensive, but there are reasons for this (that I can go further into) that are not the fault of the people in the healthcare industry in many instances. Forcing everyone into the same net will not make these expenses evaporate. Market laws don't just change because you make something public.

As Pallamedes said earlier, there are no free lunches. I really don't understand why some of you have a hard time with this.
So, lets look back at the U.S. 25 years ago.
Most of the Thom, Dick and Harry's still had a job that offered medical insurance and a retirement stipend.
What happened to America?
How could such generous social medicine just dry up and evaporate into thin air?
The Reagan years is what happened and we as a country have been thrown into the toilet ever since.

I would like to know what an exceptable percentage of ones income should go towards medical insurance?

I know people who spend as much as 30% of their net incomes on medical insurance.
If one of these people where to get really sick and recover from their illness then the insurance companies would cancel their coverage!

I would be willing to pay more taxes for free medical insurance and less taxes to support private contractors like Halliburton (http://www.halliburton.com/) and Bechtel (http://www.bechtel.com/)!

[Aemma]

Ahh and you guys have the pleasure of dealing with HMOs as well. HMOs--where the bean counter knows medicine better than the treating physician! Riiiight! :rolleyes:

[Debaser11]

So, lets look back at the U.S. 25 years ago.
Most of the Thom, Dick and Harry's still had a job that offered medical insurance and a retirement stipend.
What happened to America?
How could such generous social medicine just dry up and evaporate into thin air?
The Reagan years is what happened and we as a country have been thrown into the toilet ever since.

So you think Reagan's protectionist policies hurt you? These symptoms you describe did begin to emerge in the 1980s but are part of a larger trend that involves a declining standard of living in the West, not just because Reagan was an evil bastard.


I would like to know what an exceptable percentage of ones income should go towards medical insurance?

I don't treat the answer to this any differently than I do anything else that can be bought or sold. That may sound harsh. But doctors and other people in the health industry (understandably) don't work for free (all the time).


I know people who spend as much as 30% of their net incomes on medical insurance.
If one of these people where to get really sick and recover from their illness then the insurance companies would cancel their coverage!

Yeah, and there are terrible causes for this that our government won't address. However, roping all these problems into one net and then handing it to the government won't fix rising costs. The government is not a magic money machine. I don't want to bankrupt the U.S. even further, either.


I would be willing to pay more taxes for free medical insurance and less taxes to support private contractors like Halliburton (http://www.halliburton.com/) and Bechtel (http://www.bechtel.com/)!

I agree with this to a point. Ideally, neither the private contractors nor the government (as a healthcare provider) should be getting our money.

[Debaser11]

Well, it's not rocket science whatever system you look at. One is government funded (which means the taxpayers pay for it) and the other one is privately funded (which also means that taxpayers pay for it except they don't share any of it.) The former is based on a philosophy of redistribution of wealth whereas the latter is based on I'll keep it all to myself and screw the other guy.

Here's the disagreement. I don't think there is any right to take someone else's wealth that they earned to pay for my healthcare. It would be nice of them to. But it's not their responsibility. It's a restriction of their liberty.

You're also using some loaded language when you assume that people keep their money to "screw" someone else. There are poor people (like Austin mentioned earlier) who spend their money on beer and cigarettes and use food stamps to buy all sorts of products that promise an early grave. Yet it's the person who wants to keep money that he legitimately owned that is screwing someone over?

I have extra pocket cash. I spend it on leisure activities and buy stuff I don't need. Just because someone has more of this pocket cash does not mean that they are immoral if they refuse to hawk some of it over. I mean, there is no standard with which to judge "who has more money than they NEED."


I dunno. I kind of like the sharing bit personally.
I think that's great. But we don't need government to share. There are charities that satisfy this need to be kind. My problem is people who want to share deciding that they need to make this decision for everyone else with a little extra cash.


If I'm a have I like to give some to the have not's and would like to think that one day *if* and when I should become a have-not then my fellow citizens won't begrudge me having a run of tough luck in life and will want to share a bit of their own have with me too. It all evens out in the wash in the end.

I think that most of the people in the minus column are in the minus column for a reason--their values. There are exceptions and that's why I like charities. I would like to give my money to a kid with an early onset of MS or to the Sunshine Kids (who have cancer) than give it to a government pool that's going to allow some jerk off who drank and smoked (using food stamps) to get the same priority treatment as the aforementioned kid. I know this is going to sound harsh, but I feel less sorry for him and frankly, he's not a priority. There's a lot of suffering and someone like that ranks pretty low.


It's a communal way of thinking as opposed to an individualistic way of thinking. It's as good an approach as any if you ask me. But it's not for everyone. Which is why I am a Canadian I suppose and why you are not. :)

I don't think communal ways of thinking can be imposed by the government. Communal thought comes from common culture and values. It existed and was strong well before social programs came into existence on the massive scale we find today. I told Susi how I felt about this a couple of pages back. I think I have history on my side there. I just see no evidence that these bonds of togetherness can be enforced by the government (even if they're creating these economic programs that rope us all together). Again, these important bonds that give us fuzzy feelings and make the country stronger come from within the people sharing a common culture. And I think that's why Sweden and Canada have gotten away with their healthcare systems up until now. I do think they'll start to crack as Western culture keeps declining.

[Bloodeagle]

So you think Reagan's protectionist policies hurt you? These symptoms you describe did begin to emerge in the 1980s but are part of a larger trend that involves a declining standard of living in the West, not just because Reagan was an evil bastard.

Yep, deregulation of the energy and transportation sectors has hurt me and every other American.


I don't treat the answer to this any differently than I do anything else that can be bought or sold. That may sound harsh. But doctors and other people in the health industry (understandably) don't work for free (all the time).Yes, but how many luxury cars does one really need in ones McMansion? Does the Hippocratic oath represent a Hypocratic oath to protect ones wealth in America alone?
I am sorry but doctors visits are just part of the health bone-us we have to pay when we get sick.



Yeah, and there are terrible causes for this that our government won't address. However, roping all these problems into one net and then handing it to the government won't fix rising costs. The government is not a magic money machine. I don't want to bankrupt the U.S. even further, either.Think about how much more free time we would have to make other intelligent choices in our lives if we did not have to worry about Johnny dieing of a fever because we have not payed our insurance premium yet.

I agree with this to a point. Ideally, neither the private contractors nor the government (as a healthcare provider) should be getting our money.Where should the money go then? :)

[Debaser11]

Yep, deregulation of the energy and transportation sectors has hurt me and every other American.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but just to play devil's advocate, California deregulated their grid later than any other state and have by far faced the largest energy crisis of any state.


Yes, but how many luxury cars does one really need in ones McMansion?

If a person has legitimately earned their wealth or legitimately inherited their wealth, it is not for me to decide. How many more records do I need to add to my collection? (I have over 600.) How many more books do I really need? How many extra shirts do I need? Do I really need the more expensive national brand of cola or can I buy the knock off and then donate the money saved to charity? Do I even need the cola when I can just drink water? You can keep deconstructing EVERYONE with some extra money in the very same manner. Should we all go around with just enough food, clothing, and water to live?



Does the Hippocratic oath represent a Hypocratic oath to protect ones wealth in America alone?
I am sorry but doctors visits are just part of the health bone-us we have to pay when we get sick.

I don't fully understand but I think many doctors go beyond the call of duty. I only have my own personal experiences to go by. Doctors earn more money, but they also work hard for their living. No one is stopping me or any other poster from attaining that same standard. But deep down we all know it's not an easy life. If they get a larger home than me for their efforts, I don't lose any sleep over it. And don't forget, that rich doctor is paying more taxes than the clerk at Sears.



Think about how much more free time we would have to make other intelligent choices in our lives if we did not have to worry about Johnny dieing of a fever because we have not payed our insurance premium yet.
Where should the money go then? :)

Clearly, Canadians and Europeans still have these worries. I'd rather take my destiny in the palm of my own hands. I don't want your money to pay for my health. I want to be free from the shackles of the lowest common denominator (not that you are;)) in society. I keep repeating this but it bears repeating: I'm not against charity. I just don't think some people should be deciding for other people that they need to forfeit a little more money simply because they have it. And I don't see any evidence that such social programs will bring us all together, either.

[Aemma]

Here's the disagreement. I don't think there is any right to take someone else's wealth that they earned to pay for my healthcare. It would be nice of them to. But it's not their responsibility. It's a restriction of their liberty.

As for "rights" to take away a portion of somebody's accumulated or earned wealth well that's been done throughout the ages if not by politicans then by pettier politicians (feudal lords come to mind) and uhmm yeah the Church in all of its manifestations. (And you can't start telling me that all those Bible Belt preachers asking for money from people who often are not in any financial health to be able to do so, are not in some way "taking without really asking" either. But I digress.)

In modern day societies the electorate gives the government the "right" to take a share of the collective's/nation state's money. As far as I recall, your country is acting legally by imposing taxes on its own people and redistributing it as it sees fit. If it is not, I think Houston you've got a problem. :D


You're also using some loaded language when you assume that people keep their money to "screw" someone else.

Yep loaded language, a bit unfairly perhaps. BUT I never did say that they keep their money in order to screw them. I just said they keep their money and say "Screw them!". There's a big difference there.



There are poor people (like Austin mentioned earlier) who spend their money on beer and cigarettes and use food stamps to buy all sorts of products that promise an early grave. Yet it's the person who wants to keep money that he legitimately owned that is screwing someone over?

Hmm I have a couple of problems with this part, least of which is throwing anything that Austin has to say in my face. But that's a separate issue. I would like to ask you though if you've ever worked in a welfare office? Have you? Not all people who are on welfare deserve to be there. You're blaming the victim in some if not many cases. Now I'm not so naive as to think that there is no fudging of the system that can and does occur by some (and I repeat SOME) people BUT it is not people's primary modus operandi. Do you honestly think that most people receiving welfare enjoy their lives? If you think so, think again. Most people are there because they are in dire straits. End of story. And they would like to have a better life if only they could manage to achieve such a thing. I'll reiterate what I've said a week ago or so, we're all just one or two paycheques away from living in their shoes. A bit of compassion goes a long way in life.


I have extra pocket cash, I spend it on leisure activities and buy stuff I don't need. Just because someone has more of this pocket cash does not mean that they are immoral if they refuse to hawk some of it over. I mean, there is no standard with which to judge "who has more money than they NEED."

You don't want to share. I dig it. But many others in life do. It's not fair for you to judge those of us who do want to share the bounty with others either. It doesn't make us bad people, D11. :rolleyes:



I think that's great. But we don't need government to share.

Uhm really? And who do you propose to act in the government's stead? A charitable organisation with no public oversight (which means no real accountability) and an administration cost which eats up quite easily 30% of the funds at the door? Hmm I'd rather that 90% (again I'm not so naive as to think that 100% would make its way to the intended target) of the funds reach the intended population than a mere 70%, wouldn't you?


There are charities that satisfy this need to be kind. My problem is people who want to share deciding that they need to make this decision for everyone else with a little extra cash.

Well not all charities are created equally let's say.

Again, decisions are made with your electoral vote. That's what a democracy is about (in part). And the group in this instance, the electorate which is made up of taxpayers has every right to dictate where it would like its communal pool of funds to go. I don't see how you can have a problem with this since you have a say in the matter as well.



I think that most of the people in minus column are in the minus column for a reason--their values.

Yikes harsh, but it's your opinion. Not one that I share in the main however.

But then look at your own values. By your very own line of reasoning (ie people shouldn't be permitted to take away my hard earned money) you yourself are imposing a set of values.

We all have values, D11. What makes a community work is trying to foster a sense of shared communal values. If you don't dig the community thing you just don't. Like I said. We're two different nations with two underlying philosophical approaches as to how we want our countries to be run. It suits me fine. And I'm sure it suits you fine as well. :)


There are exceptions and that's why I like charities. I would like to give my money to a give born with an early onset of MS or to the Sunshine Kids (with cancer) than give it to a government pool that's going to allow some jerk off who drank and smoked (using food stamps) to get the same priority treatment as the aforementioned kid.

But we're talking about different things here. Or at least issues that impact people on a different level. Kids with cancer and kids born with MS, yes these charities are worthwhile. But there are also kids that go without breakfast in the morning and they can't learn properly (or synthesize the information adequately) yet the system pushes them through as illiterates, well functionally literate as they may be, but who are earmarked for dead end jobs, or worse no jobs at all since we live in an Information Age and you need much better 3 R skills than functional literacy can provide. Do you get my drift here? Big picture D11 and my assessment is going to sound as harsh as yours does: But it's not the kid dying with cancer that is going to be working 15 or 20 years hence and trying to earn a living and make informed decisions about his world, his country, his politicians. He'll be dead. It's the kid you couldn't bring yourself to throw a few bucks at to feed in a breakfast program because his parents couldn't provide (for whatever reason and there are many) because you saw them as weak and not deserving that is going to live and make decisions and be your neighbour and your fellow citizen. Wouldn't you rather help with a hand up? Give the kid some breakfast so he can learn and become a productive member of your society?

I dunno. We all make our choices. I know mine.




I know this is going to sound harsh, but I feel less sorry for him and frankly, he's not a priority. There's a lot of suffering and someone like that ranks pretty low.

See above.



I don't think communal ways of thinking can be imposed by the government. Communal thought comes from common culture and values. It existed and was strong well before social programs came into existence on the massive scale we find today. I told Susi how I felt about this a couple of pages back. I think I have history on my side there. I just see no evidence that these bonds of togetherness can be enforced by the government (even if they're creating these economic programs that rope us all together). Again, these important bonds that give us fuzzy feelings and make the country stronger come from within the people sharing a common culture. And I think that's why Sweden and Canada have gotten away with their healthcare systems up until now. I do think they'll start to crack as Western culture keeps declining.

alright the above I have to keep for another day. It's 4 am and I need to sleep. But it is a whole other kettle of fish. Rich for discussion. Thank you. :)

And yeah it's my turn to be a blowhard now. :) It just makes for richer debate. :) :D

See ya later!

[Psychonaut]

Everytime you say, "I like free ," God kills a retard, because you've just exceeded the world's quotient of retardism. Public services are not free; this has been reiterated [i]ad nauseum. However, the consistent use of the word "free" might be having a cognitive effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir_Whorf) on the conception of that which the word is being applied to. Better to say, "I like that is funded by money which is forcibly extracted on pain of prison from [insert percentage from your nation]% of our population."


The thing is, if everyone pays a bit from their paycheque (the same that you'd pay for a modest plan) then everyone can have healthcare.


Much individualism, here in America anyway, stems from being repeatedly sponged off of by those not willing to fend for themselves. There's only so much a person can take before the walls are built--particularly by those who ask nothing themselves.

The Vermonter plainly states the principal dispute that so many of us have with public services in general. In the US, almost half (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html) of those who are employed pay no tax. Add 10% unemployment to that and you have a [i]majority of the population that is paying nothing into a system, while receiving nearly all of the benefits.


It's a communal way of thinking as opposed to an individualistic way of thinking. It's as good an approach as any if you ask me. But it's not for everyone. Which is why I am a Canadian I suppose and why you are not. :)

As I see it, the problem with the way things are currently run is that people who are themselves givers are in a position of power to force many others to behave similarly. That absolutely robs the communal nature of a public service from any sense of community. I help my neighbor because...

I have the ability to,
he is in need of it,
and, he is worthy of receiving it.
I don't personally go and lend my services to cracked out gangsters in Philly because they don't meet my criteria, and it bothers me to no end that I am forced to do so with my paycheck in spite of my moral objections to gift things to people who, in all likelihood, would attempt to mug me were I to wander into their neighborhood unarmed.

[Debaser11]

As for "rights" to take away a portion of somebody's accumulated or earned wealth well that's been done throughout the ages if not by politicans then by pettier politicians (feudal lords come to mind) and uhmm yeah the Church in all of its manifestations. (And you can't start telling me that all those Bible Belt preachers asking for money from people who often are not in any financial health to be able to do so, are not in some way "taking without really asking" either. But I digress.)

In modern day societies the electorate gives the government the "right" to take a share of the collective's/nation state's money. As far as I recall, your country is acting legally by imposing taxes on its own people and redistributing it as it sees fit. If it is not, I think Houston you've got a problem. :D

Right. My argument was not so much appealing to legality as it is to a code of morality. I will not try to argue that income tax is illegal (though that can be done in the U.S. but that's for another thread) even if it is egregiously progressive and imposes a much steeper burden on those who earn more.

When it comes to national defense, roads, historical parks and even other resources like water, I have no problem with collecting (flat) taxes so that "the public" can own it. My issue is with the creation of a whole entitlement class that expects its own shortcomings in life to made up for by a total stranger.


Yep loaded language, a bit unfairly perhaps. BUT I never did say that they keep their money in order to screw them. I just said they keep their money and say "Screw them!". There's a big difference there.

Right, but I don't think it's fair to say that because someone keeps their money that they are screwing someone else by default. Again, I'll refer back to my previous argument. At what point does someone have "too much" and at what point does someone effectively start screwing other people other by holding onto money? There is no clear standard and what people consider to be extra money is basically relative. By those standards of morality, I'm screwing someone over too. Everyone who does more than drink water, eat the cheapest gruel and sleep in the most modest dwelling is. I reject such rigorous standards that try to connect altruism to morality in such a way.





Hmm I have a couple of problems with this part, least of which is throwing anything that Austin has to say in my face. But that's a separate issue. I would like to ask you though if you've ever worked in a welfare office? Have you? Not all people who are on welfare deserve to be there.

No, but I have worked jobs in which many of the people (Mexicans) belonged to what we'd call the underclass. State-enforced altruism is still an affront to one's liberty regardless of how other people ended up poor. If a person is screwing someone for not giving a poor person in Canada extra money (for whatever reason) then you are basically saying that they are bad for not adapting a slavish mentality toward the poor. I have no inherent debt toward someone with less money than me. Yet the appeal for entitlement programs like healthcare says I do.



You're blaming the victim in some if not many cases.

Right. I do this a bit. But "blaming the victim" is hardly central to my argument against such programs. I also reject the idea that they should be labeled as "victims." How we choose to frame this debate with language is half the battle. I mean, who is not a "victim" these days? Going by what the media tells me, middle class white men even though they disproportionately forfeit money they earn by working at jobs to other people.


Now I'm not so naive as to think that there is no fudging of the system that can and does occur by some (and I repeat SOME) people BUT it is not people's primary modus operandi. Do you honestly think that most people receiving welfare enjoy their lives?

Yes. There is a whole class of people we call "welfare queens" who do nothing but make babies to increase their "gubmint" checks. Their life might seem very hard to a normal person with sane priorities like yourself, but I do think many would honestly rather live in Section Eight housing with six or so screaming kids who they can drop off at the library while they find a way to cash their food stamps. I do believe there are no small numbers of people that allergic to work. I don't work in a welfare office, that's true. And I don't want to diminish your own experiences. But I've lived next to my share of poor people. I've observed underclass behavior and priorities. On the surface, many of them seem to live hard lives. But many of them have priorities that keep them down. Even a simple job at Jack-In-The Box can lead to a better standard of living than a lot of these people have if they simply managed their money better and had sensible priorities.

Many of them simply can't delay short-term pleasures in the interest of a long-term payoff.
They don't care that it's better to save in the long run than get drunk in the short term or that it's better to pay your electric bill than "bling" your rims. And perhaps worst of all, many could care less that it's better to abstain from sex or to at least use birth control rather than to bring another life kicking and screaming into the world when they can hardly take care of themselves. They don't call these tendencies "underclass behavior" for no reason. It's no wonder many of them can't make more than I made when I was in high school (working on the weekends). Many would never have the discipline to pay off an investment like a small business which can take years to do. I actually can't believe people are shocked about the sub-prime mortgage housing crisis (which resulted from our government forcing banks to lend to poor people) in the U.S.

My grandfather worked at a 7/11 in the heart of Houston's modern day ghetto and dealt with people using food stamps to buy malt liquor. He has been held up 3-4 times and taken hostage at least once. (One of his buddies who actually took his shift for him one night was actually killed. I would never kill someone like that regardless of how poor I became. And I think you're the same way. I doubt it's in your blood just like I doubt you'd buy lottery tickets with your cashed food stamps. I would starve to death before I'd kill an innocent person. Of course, the piece of trash who did the killing was hardly starving.) I've watched my old neighborhood become a ghetto as these people moved north. I've worked with and been around the underclass myself. But again, attacking the poor is not what holds up my argument.




If you think so, think again. Most people are there because they are in dire straits. End of story.

So you don't think they are in dire straights because of poor personal decisions? It's just some force of nature that keeps some people in the gutter while others can crawl out? My ancestors came to the U.S. and went to work as poor, homeless sharecroppers right after they got off the boat. So did many other immigrants. These people were in dire straights if anyone ever was. They did work that even some of the blacks were too proud to do. There was literally nothing for them. No affirmative action, no welfare, and no Section Eight housing or school lunches let alone any school. How did they manage to pull themselves up and up and up while others maybe move up a small gradation and then stagnate? (I imagine that it's not unlikely that your family has a similar history as mine.) Now my father co-owns a small electrical business and pays for his children's college education.

And while it's uncomfortable for some to talk about, poverty and race are inextricably linked.
Why are so many people with European backgrounds able to do move up to high levels while Latinos move up a bit but considerably less and why do blacks ALWAYS stay at the bottom no matter where they live in the world? Did my ancestors have the "white privilege" communist race-baiters like Tim Wise talk about? Do you think mass discrimination still exists despite the fact that every institution imaginable (including my father's own private business) is DESPERATE to fill racial quotas to avoid stupid lawsuits. And even without racial quotas, why is it the responsibility of Europeans to hire blacks onto their businesses? Because of slavery? No one handed the Europeans anything and many of them were slaves at one point but there is no one for them to complain to. The blacks can't build up their own wealth but have to be incorporated into white wealth or else they are entitled to taxpayer money? You don't think the fact that whites have their wealth could have something to do with the values these European-descended peoples brought with them that are so derided as being "Euro-centric" these days? (Could you imagine a Jewish intellectual going to Japan and telling people there that their values are so "Japocentric"?)


And they would like to have a better life if only they could manage to achieve such a thing.

So would nearly everyone, I'd imagine.


I'll reiterate what I've said a week ago or so, we're all just one or two paycheques away from living in their shoes. A bit of compassion goes a long way in life.

Except you probably don't have a poverty mentality. I'd imagine if you went on welfare, you wouldn't be the lifer that many of the people that are on it are. I would actually have much less of a problem paying you if you went on welfare, but the system of welfare promotes a poverty mentality to spread. For many people, there is no incentive to get off of it. Though their lives LOOK hard (due to their rough exterior), I believe many of them are willing to settle for less than the average respectable person (which can extend into areas of personal hygiene) and some actually take delight in using this to play to your sense of guilt. Such a system which gives incentive to underclass behavior in my view cannot be good.




You don't want to share. I dig it. But many others in life do.

No, that's not necessarily true that I don't want to share. (In fact, I tip pretty big and I do give money to bums sometimes (but not as much as I used to)). A lot of liberals assume the worst about people's own personal lives who make such arguments and often seem to think such people are motivated by greed. (I know to a certain degree because I used to be a big lefty.) But focusing on what I do with my own money misses the point, I think.

My views would not keep anyone from sharing. If you want people to play with your toys too, go right ahead. But I don't think it's my decision (or anyone else's) to make whether or not Johnny has to share his toys. In fact, if someone else made that decision for Johnny, he wouldn't be "sharing" his toys. I can't very be said to be sharing something I gave no permission for someone to have in the place.


It's not fair for you to judge those of us who do want to share the bounty with others either. It doesn't make us bad people, D11. :rolleyes:

Well, share your bounty. What gives other people the right to decide what I or the guy next door does with his bounty when it was legitimately attained in the first place?





really? And who do you propose to act in the government's stead? A charitable organisation with no public oversight (which means no real accountability) and an administration cost which eats up quite easily 30% of the funds at the door?

Wait. Are you actually worried that a private organization (in which people could chose to donate to or not donate to for various reasons) would be MORE susceptible to fraud and waste than the government who doesn't have to compete for anyone's money? The same government that charges 700 bones for a toilet seat (at least in the U.S.)? I'd much rather take my chances with the private entity which has to be efficient or face extinction.




Again, decisions are made with your electoral vote. That's what a democracy is about (in part).

They are. But let's not confuse democracy with morality. Legislators pass unjust laws all the time. What's legal and what's not legal is hardly my moral compass.



And the group in this instance, the electorate which is made up of taxpayers has every right to dictate where it would like its communal pool of funds to go.

Yes, they do. But I think that majority can be mistaken. A majority of legislators gave Bush the power to go to war with Iraq. I would not say that they were right by any stretch.


I don't see how you can have a problem with this since you have a say in the matter as well.

See above. I may live in a republic, but that doesn't mean the government is capable of being as responsive to my wants as you're making it sound.



But then look at your own values. By your very own line of reasoning (ie people shouldn't be permitted to take away my hard earned money) you yourself are imposing a set of values.

Exactly. There is no way any system cannot have imposed values. I just happen to like ones that lean towards personal liberty (and by default personal responsibility) over ones that say I have an obligation to the lowest common denominator of society simply because they were born. That may sound even more harsh. But I'm only trying to be truthful. And I think more people feel that way and just don't always realize it. When something like government is involved, people often make the issue into a larger abstraction than what it really is.


We all have values, D11. What makes a community work is trying to foster a sense of shared communal values. If you don't dig the community thing you just don't. Like I said. We're two different nations with two underlying philosophical approaches as to how we want our countries to be run. It suits me fine. And I'm sure it suits you fine as well. :)

I like community. I just don't think that community can be legislated or made into a government program. Community has to be built from the values and culture of the people making up a geographical space. Government can promote certain values and reinforce them but it can't just make them out of thin air. They have to be rooted in the culture in some way. I think communal values are declining because, culturally, we laud diversity and individuality. It's only when this individualism is applied to economic matters that it gets a negative connotation in our liberal Marxist media. But I think without the cultural foundation, attempts by the government to create communal feelings are in vain. You'll simply be redistributing people's money. Some of my tax dollars already go to help people "less privileged" (gotta love that liberal language) than me. Yet I'll bet if I go to the poor areas, I won't receive any gratitude for being a taxpayer nor will I share any communal feelings with these people.


But we're talking about different things here. Or at least issues that impact people on a different level. Kids with cancer and kids born with MS, yes these charities are worthwhile. But there are also kids that go without breakfast in the morning and they can't learn properly (or synthesize the information adequately) yet the system pushes them through as illiterates, well functionally literate as they may be, but who are earmarked for dead end jobs, or worse no jobs at all since we live in an Information Age and you need much better 3 R skills than functional literacy can provide.

I think it's good to help them too. I just don't think I'm morally responsible to help them. Is everyone who is better off morally responsible to help everyone else who isn't? If your answer is "yes," how is that not a slavish system?


Do you get my drift here? Big picture D11 and my assessment is going to sound as harsh as yours does: But it's not the kid dying with cancer that is going to be working 15 or 20 years hence and trying to earn a living and make informed decisions about his world, his country, his politicians. He'll be dead. It's the kid you couldn't bring yourself to throw a few bucks at to feed in a breakfast program because his parents couldn't provide (for whatever reason and there are many) because you saw them as weak and not deserving that is going to live and make decisions and be your neighbour and your fellow citizen.

I reject this system of morality. It would be nice if I helped him, yes. But I don't have any moral obligation to help such a kid. Think about any frivolity you've spent your cash on. I could use this exact logic to say you could have used those "extra bucks" to help kid X (because there will always be such a kid). I don't think the fact that you spent those dollars on yourself makes you a worse person because kid X was never your responsibility to begin with.


Wouldn't you rather help with a hand up? Give the kid some breakfast so he can learn and become a productive member of your society?

Sure, but this moral reasoning that tells people what they should give up to help has no bottom except for the bare essentials. Is that how all of us "privileged" people should be living our lives?



alright the above I have to keep for another day. It's 4 am and I need to sleep. But it is a whole other kettle of fish. Rich for discussion. Thank you. :)

And yeah it's my turn to be a blowhard now. :) It just makes for richer debate. :) :D

See ya later!

No problem. I enjoyed it. Good to talk to you again, Aemma. Take care!

[Grumpy Cat]

Ahh and you guys have the pleasure of dealing with HMOs as well. HMOs--where the bean counter knows medicine better than the treating physician! Riiiight! :rolleyes:

Yeah I could just imagine dealing with an HMO in my situation. Getting two stitches would probably be even more bureaucracy.

[Birka]

Aemma posted:
"In modern day societies the electorate gives the government the "right" to take a share of the collective's/nation state's money. As far as I recall, your country is acting legally by imposing taxes on its own people and redistributing it as it sees fit. If it is not, I think Houston you've got a problem."

A recent poll in America said that about 60% of the people do not feel they are being governed with their consent. The latest poll shows about 63% of Americans want the Obongo healthcare law repealed. The President and Congress daily ignore the rule of the land, the Constitution, and ignore the will of the people. So, in modern day America, this illegal government has stolen the "right" to do all the illegal things they do.

Houston, and the whole shebang has a major problem.

[Aemma]

As I see it, the problem with the way things are currently run is that people who are themselves givers are in a position of power to force many others to behave similarly. That absolutely robs the communal nature of a public service from any sense of community. I help my neighbor because...

I have the ability to,
he is in need of it,
and, he is worthy of receiving it.
I don't personally go and lend my services to cracked out gangsters in Philly because they don't meet my criteria, and it bothers me to no end that I am forced to do so with my paycheck in spite of my moral objections to gift things to people who, in all likelihood, would attempt to mug me were I to wander into their neighborhood unarmed.


I can appreciate this sentiment. Truly I can. Having said this however, it is equally unfair to paint ALL poor people with the same brushstroke. They too are individuals. Just because one might be receiving government aid via a welfare program does not make one ipso facto a drug addict nor a gangster.

My biggest gripe with most of these discussions is that most people are unable to shake off the idea that all welfare recipients are drug addicts and tend to use the worst of the examples of poverty (such as this one) to explain their positions. There are shades of poverty and their effects on people and their lives.

But focusing on your last sentence Psy, I do realise that we live in totally different worlds. Thinking that a person is armed as a matter of course would not even enter my mind whereas it would yours. That scenario isn't as prevalent here in Canada (well yet anyway). I've never even seen a gun up close, never mind held one. And to go out walking my dog and wondering if the stranger approaching me is packing heat is as far off my consciousness loop as you could imagine. It's just not ever--ever--at the forefront of my thought process when I meet a person coming down the street. Different worlds and experiences lead to totally different approaches towards people and Life I guess.

In the end, it's ok to be different. I think we need to be different. That's what makes us who we are.

But coming back to that cracked out gangster in Philly: What if he were a brother who wanted to reform? Would you then help him out?

[Austin]

Maybe, but the world isn't all rich people is it? Better to have good healthcare, instead of not being able to afford it at all.

Most whites in the U.S. have great healthcare, better than most Europeans actually. =) It is minorities who don't largely.

[Debaser11]

Most whites in the U.S. have great healthcare, better than most Europeans actually. =) It is minorities who don't largely.

Right. A lot of this goes back to weighing short-term benefits (which give immediate gratification) versus long-term benefits (which require sacrifice and the ability to delay gratification).

Even a job at Jack-In-The-Crack will allow a person to pay for insurance with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The caveat is that they may not be able to afford such insurance along with Escalade payments, credit card debt, buying shiny rims, wearing "bling," "pimpin out" a new pair of expensive Nikes, buying a sweet stereo, or going to the movies every week. And you probably won't be able to afford paying for such insurance with such a job if you have several child-support payments you have to make. But whose fault is that? Certainly it's not my fault Tyrone is knocking up Shaniqua and Monique and is now in a bit of a pickle. I didn't whisper into his ear, "hey, be a dumbass and f*ck up your whole life."

It comes down to priorities if money is a problem for you. Do you want to go to the club or do you want to have health insurance? Do you want cable television or to you want to make cheaper trips to the doctor's office with co-pays instead of paying the real value for the doctor's time? Many minorities (and lower class whites) pick the former and then get indignant about not having health insurance.

You know, I was pretty damned poor once. I lived off of less than 100 dollars a week and made it work pretty well by just having enough will power to not be pretentious. To the poor who put style and frivolous creature comforts over life-sustaining investments...

it's...tough banana, assholes (the entitlement class, not other posters @ Apricity)!

[Psychonaut]

I can appreciate this sentiment. Truly I can. Having said this however, it is equally unfair to paint ALL poor people with the same brushstroke. They too are individuals. Just because one might be receiving government aid via a welfare program does not make one ipso facto a drug addict nor a gangster.

My biggest gripe with most of these discussions is that most people are unable to shake off the idea that all welfare recipients are drug addicts and tend to use the worst of the examples of poverty (such as this one) to explain their positions. There are shades of poverty and their effects on people and their lives.

To be sure, not all of them are shit heads, but the fact that so many of the visible ones are and that this fact is thrown in my face any time I drive around in a city has completely turned me off to mandated welfare programs. Even though not all welfare recipients are drug addicted criminals, my money is guaranteed to go to these types.


But focusing on your last sentence Psy, I do realise that we live in totally different worlds. Thinking that a person is armed as a matter of course would not even enter my mind whereas it would yours. That scenario isn't as prevalent here in Canada (well yet anyway). I've never even seen a gun up close, never mind held one. And to go out walking my dog and wondering if the stranger approaching me is packing heat is as far off my consciousness loop as you could imagine. It's just not ever--ever--at the forefront of my thought process when I meet a person coming down the street. Different worlds and experiences lead to totally different approaches towards people and Life I guess.

In the end, it's ok to be different. I think we need to be different. That's what makes us who we are.

Come down and pay us a visit. I'm sure we can arrange a tour of West Philly. :D


But coming back to that cracked out gangster in Philly: What if he were a brother who wanted to reform? Would you then help him out?

That all depends on my level of connectedness to him. Why dilute my limited funds to those who are disconnected from me when I could intentionally direct them towards those with whom I share close bonds? I'd much rather my aid go to a nice Heathen family here in Pennsyltucky than a pimp in Philly. Private charity gives me that option; mandated welfare doesn't.

[Aemma]

Gods...I dunno about you, but I'm tuckered. After this I think I may just keep to the lowbrow section for a bit of respite. My head hurts. :D

Well first of all I'd like to say, all of your points are very valid, D11. And I cannot in good conscience or logic really offer an adequate rebuttal right now because my head is quite sore from all of this and well, a big part of me can also appreciate what you have just said. Like I said before, I'm not so naive as to think that the system is a great one. It's far from being a perfect one.

I guess the only thing I would like to truly address here is the issue of race and poverty. Canada is a different animal, or at least has been up until a very recent past. We've never had the same race issues as you Americans have grown up with. Let me qualify, it's perhaps now becoming an issue since the major waves of immigration. But in all honesty for the better part of my life I've mostly ever dealt with English and French Canadians and the odd 'other-European' Canadian because quite frankly the Canada that I grew up in didn't have a huge racial diversity component. In elementary school there was one Haitian family and one Greek family and a couple of Portuguese families. That was it! In high school, we had a very very small group of black families and I think 8 East Indian families---this in a high school of 2000 kids at its peak.

All of this to say that I come to these discussions from a totally different vantage point, even one that is mostly quite different from my fellow Canucks here on this board I would dare say who are for the most part a good 20-25 years younger than I am. :)

Different times, different epochs even, make for different experiences and different takes on things. People do change however. Imagine, I used to be even more left-wing than I am now! ;) But we live, have relationships, have kids even, and grow and rethink and reassess. It's all good.

The trick is not to become stagnant--ever. And to challenge not only other people's thoughts but more importantly our own.

Now I am going to fetch myself a good beer and close my end of this conversation. It's tiring on my brain to be quite honest. It's been good and has served as a reminder to me that we all have different experiences and we can all learn from one another. But in the end, I'm truly at a point in my life where I'd rather focus on the positive and the similarities between our countries and working towards the rapprochement of folk as opposed to letting outside influences (such as governmental policy) work their way at dividing and conquering a burgeoning folk community.

And on this note, I bid you all adieu from this thread.

See you all elsewhere! :)


Right. My argument was not so much appealing to legality as it is to a code of morality. I will not try to argue that income tax is illegal (though that can be done in the U.S. but that's for another thread) even if it is egregiously progressive and imposes a much steeper burden on those who earn more.

When it comes to national defense, roads, historical parks and even other resources like water, I have no problem with collecting (flat) taxes so that "the public" can own it. My issue is with the creation of a whole entitlement class that expects its own shortcomings in life to made up for by a total stranger.



Right, but I don't think it's fair to say that because someone keeps their money that they are screwing someone else by default. Again, I'll refer back to my previous argument. At what point does someone have "too much" and at what point does someone effectively start screwing other people other by holding onto money? There is no clear standard and what people consider to be extra money is basically relative. By those standards of morality, I'm screwing someone over too. Everyone who does more than drink water, eat the cheapest gruel and sleep in the most modest dwelling is. I reject such rigorous standards that try to connect altruism to morality in such a way.






No, but I have worked jobs in which many of the people (Mexicans) belonged to what we'd call the underclass. State-enforced altruism is still an affront to one's liberty regardless of how other people ended up poor. If a person is screwing someone for not giving a poor person in Canada extra money (for whatever reason) then you are basically saying that they are bad for not adapting a slavish mentality toward the poor. I have no inherent debt toward someone with less money than me. Yet the appeal for entitlement programs like healthcare says I do.




Right. I do this a bit. But "blaming the victim" is hardly central to my argument against such programs. I also reject the idea that they should be labeled as "victims." How we choose to frame this debate with language is half the battle. I mean, who is not a "victim" these days? Going by what the media tells me, middle class white men even though they disproportionately forfeit money they earn by working at jobs to other people.



Yes. There is a whole class of people we call "welfare queens" who do nothing but make babies to increase their "gubmint" checks. Their life might seem very hard to a normal person with sane priorities like yourself, but I do think many would honestly rather live in Section Eight housing with six or so screaming kids who they can drop off at the library while they find a way to cash their food stamps. I do believe there are no small numbers of people that allergic to work. I don't work in a welfare office, that's true. And I don't want to diminish your own experiences. But I've lived next to my share of poor people. I've observed underclass behavior and priorities. On the surface, many of them seem to live hard lives. But many of them have priorities that keep them down. Even a simple job at Jack-In-The Box can lead to a better standard of living than a lot of these people have if they simply managed their money better and had sensible priorities.

Many of them simply can't delay short-term pleasures in the interest of a long-term payoff.
They don't care that it's better to save in the long run than get drunk in the short term or that it's better to pay your electric bill than "bling" your rims. And perhaps worst of all, many could care less that it's better to abstain from sex or to at least use birth control rather than to bring another life kicking and screaming into the world when they can hardly take care of themselves. They don't call these tendencies "underclass behavior" for no reason. It's no wonder many of them can't make more than I made when I was in high school (working on the weekends). Many would never have the discipline to pay off an investment like a small business which can take years to do. I actually can't believe people are shocked about the sub-prime mortgage housing crisis (which resulted from our government forcing banks to lend to poor people) in the U.S.

My grandfather worked at a 7/11 in the heart of Houston's modern day ghetto and dealt with people using food stamps to buy malt liquor. He has been held up 3-4 times and taken hostage at least once. (One of his buddies who actually took his shift for him one night was actually killed. I would never kill someone like that regardless of how poor I became. And I think you're the same way. I doubt it's in your blood just like I doubt you'd buy lottery tickets with your cashed food stamps. I would starve to death before I'd kill an innocent person. Of course, the piece of trash who did the killing was hardly starving.) I've watched my old neighborhood become a ghetto as these people moved north. I've worked with and been around the underclass myself. But again, attacking the poor is not what holds up my argument.





So you don't think they are in dire straights because of poor personal decisions? It's just some force of nature that keeps some people in the gutter while others can crawl out? My ancestors came to the U.S. and went to work as poor, homeless sharecroppers right after they got off the boat. So did many other immigrants. These people were in dire straights if anyone ever was. They did work that even some of the blacks were too proud to do. There was literally nothing for them. No affirmative action, no welfare, and no Section Eight housing or school lunches let alone any school. How did they manage to pull themselves up and up and up while others maybe move up a small gradation and then stagnate? (I imagine that it's not unlikely that your family has a similar history as mine.) Now my father co-owns a small electrical business and pays for his children's college education.

And while it's uncomfortable for some to talk about, poverty and race are inextricably linked.
Why are so many people with European backgrounds able to do move up to high levels while Latinos move up a bit but considerably less and why do blacks ALWAYS stay at the bottom no matter where they live in the world? Did my ancestors have the "white privilege" communist race-baiters like Tim Wise talk about? Do you think mass discrimination still exists despite the fact that every institution imaginable (including my father's own private business) is DESPERATE to fill racial quotas to avoid stupid lawsuits. And even without racial quotas, why is it the responsibility of Europeans to hire blacks onto their businesses? Because of slavery? No one handed the Europeans anything and many of them were slaves at one point but there is no one for them to complain to. The blacks can't build up their own wealth but have to be incorporated into white wealth or else they are entitled to taxpayer money? You don't think the fact that whites have their wealth could have something to do with the values these European-descended peoples brought with them that are so derided as being "Euro-centric" these days? (Could you imagine a Jewish intellectual going to Japan and telling people there that their values are so "Japocentric"?)



So would nearly everyone, I'd imagine.



Except you probably don't have a poverty mentality. I'd imagine if you went on welfare, you wouldn't be the lifer that many of the people that are on it are. I would actually have much less of a problem paying you if you went on welfare, but the system of welfare promotes a poverty mentality to spread. For many people, there is no incentive to get off of it. Though their lives LOOK hard (due to their rough exterior), I believe many of them are willing to settle for less than the average respectable person (which can extend into areas of personal hygiene) and some actually take delight in using this to play to your sense of guilt. Such a system which gives incentive to underclass behavior in my view cannot be good.





No, that's not necessarily true that I don't want to share. (In fact, I tip pretty big and I do give money to bums sometimes (but not as much as I used to)). A lot of liberals assume the worst about people's own personal lives who make such arguments and often seem to think such people are motivated by greed. (I know to a certain degree because I used to be a big lefty.) But focusing on what I do with my own money misses the point, I think.

My views would not keep anyone from sharing. If you want people to play with your toys too, go right ahead. But I don't think it's my decision (or anyone else's) to make whether or not Johnny has to share his toys. In fact, if someone else made that decision for Johnny, he wouldn't be "sharing" his toys. I can't very be said to be sharing something I gave no permission for someone to have in the place.



Well, share your bounty. What gives other people the right to decide what I or the guy next door does with his bounty when it was legitimately attained in the first place?






Wait. Are you actually worried that a private organization (in which people could chose to donate to or not donate to for various reasons) would be MORE susceptible to fraud and waste than the government who doesn't have to compete for anyone's money? The same government that charges 700 bones for a toilet seat (at least in the U.S.)? I'd much rather take my chances with the private entity which has to be efficient or face extinction.




They are. But let's not confuse democracy with morality. Legislators pass unjust laws all the time. What's legal and what's not legal is hardly my moral compass.




Yes, they do. But I think that majority can be mistaken. A majority of legislators gave Bush the power to go to war with Iraq. I would not say that they were right by any stretch.



See above. I may live in a republic, but that doesn't mean the government is capable of being as responsive to my wants as you're making it sound.




Exactly. There is no way any system cannot have imposed values. I just happen to like ones that lean towards personal liberty (and by default personal responsibility) over ones that say I have an obligation to the lowest common denominator of society simply because they were born. That may sound even more harsh. But I'm only trying to be truthful. And I think more people feel that way and just don't always realize it. When something like government is involved, people often make the issue into a larger abstraction than what it really is.



I like community. I just don't think that community can be legislated or made into a government program. Community has to be built from the values and culture of the people making up a geographical space. Government can promote certain values and reinforce them but it can't just make them out of thin air. They have to be rooted in the culture in some way. I think communal values are declining because, culturally, we laud diversity and individuality. It's only when this individualism is applied to economic matters that it gets a negative connotation in our liberal Marxist media. But I think without the cultural foundation, attempts by the government to create communal feelings are in vain. You'll simply be redistributing people's money. Some of my tax dollars already go to help people "less privileged" (gotta love that liberal language) than me. Yet I'll bet if I go to the poor areas, I won't receive any gratitude for being a taxpayer nor will I share any communal feelings with these people.



I think it's good to help them too. I just don't think I'm morally responsible to help them. Is everyone who is better off morally responsible to help everyone else who isn't? If your answer is "yes," how is that not a slavish system?



I reject this system of morality. It would be nice if I helped him, yes. But I don't have any moral obligation to help such a kid. Think about any frivolity you've spent your cash on. I could use this exact logic to say you could have used those "extra bucks" to help kid X (because there will always be such a kid). I don't think the fact that you spent those dollars on yourself makes you a worse person because kid X was never your responsibility to begin with.



Sure, but this moral reasoning that tells people what they should give up to help has no bottom except for the bare essentials. Is that how all of us "privileged" people should be living our lives?




No problem. I enjoyed it. Good to talk to you again, Aemma. Take care!

[Aemma]

To be sure, not all of them are shit heads, but the fact that so many of the visible ones are and that this fact is thrown in my face any time I drive around in a city has completely turned me off to mandated welfare programs. Even though not all welfare recipients are drug addicted criminals, my money is guaranteed to go to these types.

:) Again I can appreciate this. :)


Come down and pay us a visit. I'm sure we can arrange a tour of West Philly. :D

Only if Lodd promises to pack one of Ulf's rifles in his cello case and we get to tote it around with us all day. ;) :D

The rest of you I expect to be good and rowdy to keep the loons at bay. :P :D


That all depends on my level of connectedness to him. Why dilute my limited funds to those who are disconnected from me when I could intentionally direct them towards those with whom I share close bonds? I'd much rather my aid go to a nice Heathen family here in Pennsyltucky than a pimp in Philly. Private charity gives me that option; mandated welfare doesn't.

:) Yes I can also very much appreciate this sentiment. :) And that's more along the lines of my meaning of helping out a brother. :)

Ok, that beer and a less depressing and mentally taxing subject await, somewhere I hope. :)

:hug2: Props for calling me the Seal Lady! :D