America: World Police!
03-31-2011, 02:32 AM
#21
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 219
Total Cats: 1
Indeed, the national debt is a complex thing, and is not to be confused with the yearly national budget.
From what I've read and seen, the national debt has existed since the 19th century or something.
Every country has its issues, clearly, I just hope people are able to see that many things can be done differently to point the future in a better direction.
It is to be said, our free healthcare and welfare in Norway is paid by these little snags:
Gasoline prices: $9-9.50 pr gallon
Taxes: 30+% (Although, you can deduct 28% of your loan interest from your taxes)
Toll roads
Booze prices: $45 for a bottle of cheap vodka
Cigarettes: $10+ a pack
But imho, it's worth it. Doctors make like $200.000 a year, and work for the state. There are private clinics, but you get free GOOD healthcare if you prefer, and most people do.
Is it still the fear of socialism that scares people from prefering a public health care system?
It's hard to see that the general population benefit from having a privatized system, and the insurance companies are evil bitches who should rot in hell. (This goes for all insurance companies, all over the world. I pay about $1000 a year just for my 1993 Miata. My Audi costs $1500 a year, and it's a freakin' DIESEL.)
From what I've read and seen, the national debt has existed since the 19th century or something.
Every country has its issues, clearly, I just hope people are able to see that many things can be done differently to point the future in a better direction.
It is to be said, our free healthcare and welfare in Norway is paid by these little snags:
Gasoline prices: $9-9.50 pr gallon
Taxes: 30+% (Although, you can deduct 28% of your loan interest from your taxes)
Toll roads
Booze prices: $45 for a bottle of cheap vodka
Cigarettes: $10+ a pack
But imho, it's worth it. Doctors make like $200.000 a year, and work for the state. There are private clinics, but you get free GOOD healthcare if you prefer, and most people do.
Is it still the fear of socialism that scares people from prefering a public health care system?
It's hard to see that the general population benefit from having a privatized system, and the insurance companies are evil bitches who should rot in hell. (This goes for all insurance companies, all over the world. I pay about $1000 a year just for my 1993 Miata. My Audi costs $1500 a year, and it's a freakin' DIESEL.)
Reply
0
0
03-31-2011, 03:22 AM
#22
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
As a person who was born in the US, and having lived in the US nearly all of my life, I have only ever been exposed to information regarding concepts such as "national debt" in the context of the US federal government and, to a lesser extent, the various state governments.
Does a similar concept exist in European countries?
This is an honest question. I mean, we here in the states hear news (mostly from the BBC) concerning things like Greece and Spain being on the verge of bankruptcy and requiring "bailouts" from other EU member states (and how Germany thinks that this is all bullshit and they should be left to rot), but is it common for countries in the EU to accrue and measure internal deficit (where one section of government owes money to another, or where the government owes money to the people in the form of treasury bonds or similar) or is there some mechanism in place which prevents this sort of condition from occurring in the first place?
Gasoline prices: $9-9.50 pr gallon
Taxes: 30+% (Although, you can deduct 28% of your loan interest from your taxes)
Toll roads
Booze prices: $45 for a bottle of cheap vodka
I can't relate to Vodka, however I typically pay around $17 for a 1.75l bottle of Bacardi Rum.
Cigarettes: $10+ a pack
Is it still the fear of socialism that scares people from prefering a public health care system?
Certainly, the fear of "socialism" is one. The memory of the cold war is still fresh in our minds, and socialism was one of the defining characteristics of the "Evil Empire" (USSR) which every American was taught from birth to fear and hate.
Another is that, to be quite honest, we have a very poor performance history in the US when it comes to nationalized services. As a broad generalization, the state and federal offices which most citizens are exposed to on a daily basis (such as the motor vehicles department, the tax office, etc) have tended to employ people who are poorly educated, rude, and generally unpleasant to deal with. This is, of course, a direct result of programs which are designed to provide employment opportunities for what we refer to as the "underprivileged" members of society (ie: lazy ********), and it's caused most people to form a very bitter option about the idea of nationalized programmes in general.
Of course, you also have people like me. I am a first-generation American, of Cuban heritage. My father (and the rest of the family) fled their home country in 1962 after a "socialist" government seized their land, businesses and assets. So it is very difficult for me, personally, to accept any socialistic system of government. It is, I suppose, one of the inherent realities of being a member of a large and massively heterogeneous state.
Reply
0
0
03-31-2011, 04:11 AM
#25
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Manually.
Quote the whole message, then add the line breaks and [quote] tags manually.
Example:
That would produce two quote blocks. The first would be "How the **** does the multi quoting work..?" and the second would be "No way I'm replying to that long message without it.. :P" as follows:
---------------------------------
----------------------------------
As WonTon said, you can use the "quote" icon in the advanced editor, but you have to be careful to respect quote indentation levels. I find it easier to do by hand.
Quote the whole message, then add the line breaks and [quote] tags manually.
Example:
That would produce two quote blocks. The first would be "How the **** does the multi quoting work..?" and the second would be "No way I'm replying to that long message without it.. :P" as follows:
---------------------------------
No way I'm replying to that long message without it.. :P
----------------------------------
As WonTon said, you can use the "quote" icon in the advanced editor, but you have to be careful to respect quote indentation levels. I find it easier to do by hand.
Reply
0
0
)
03-31-2011, 04:45 AM
#29
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 219
Total Cats: 1
One thing has always bothered me in this.
As a person who was born in the US, and having lived in the US nearly all of my life, I have only ever been exposed to information regarding concepts such as "national debt" in the context of the US federal government and, to a lesser extent, the various state governments.
Does a similar concept exist in European countries?
As a person who was born in the US, and having lived in the US nearly all of my life, I have only ever been exposed to information regarding concepts such as "national debt" in the context of the US federal government and, to a lesser extent, the various state governments.
Does a similar concept exist in European countries?
Also it will open the borders for all the old "socialist" states that used to be under the USSR, and to say the least: They're already causing enough issues here.
Norway has about as much money invested from the oil as you have in debt, so it's not really an issue we hear much about. I don't know more then you do, since I also only hear about this through media.
Honestly, I don't view the price of petrol as a major hardship. On average, I spend perhaps $15 per week on gasoline (at approximately $4 pr gal), and it would not negatively impact my lifestyle if this amount doubled. Some of the people I work with spend more than this on coffee, despite the fact that we have a perfectly good coffee machine in the office, which is free.
So people don't trust it, and we have some congestion issues as a result.
You may find this surprising, but I pay considerably more than that. Part of this is due to the fact that I am self-employed (rather than being an employee of a corporation) but even a regular salaryman would typically pay 25-30% tax. (We actually pay two income taxes. One to the US federal government, and another to the state in which we live. Some US citizens must also pay a third income tax, to the city in which they live, although this is not common.)
Our government also gives some of the tax money to the "state" we live in, and they carry their own budget.
We have those also, however they are not very common. Typically they are limited to a very small number of A-roads, and to major bridges. A person who commutes over these routes might pay $2-$4 per day in road tolls.
I also forgot to mention, the car sales are heavily taxed. You can at least double the US price of any car, and then you'll be close to the normal price in Norway.
As an example, with a 6/1 value on the dollar to the NKR, a 2009 Corvette from the used market will cost you about $325.000.
If i import a 2005 MSM, it will cost me about $40.000.
Wow.
Well, I think that there are many causes.
Certainly, the fear of "socialism" is one. The memory of the cold war is still fresh in our minds, and socialism was one of the defining characteristics of the "Evil Empire" (USSR) which every American was taught from birth to fear and hate.
Another is that, to be quite honest, we have a very poor performance history in the US when it comes to nationalized services. As a broad generalization, the state and federal offices which most citizens are exposed to on a daily basis (such as the motor vehicles department, the tax office, etc) have tended to employ people who are poorly educated, rude, and generally unpleasant to deal with. This is, of course, a direct result of programs which are designed to provide employment opportunities for what we refer to as the "underprivileged" members of society (ie: lazy ********), and it's caused most people to form a very bitter option about the idea of nationalized programmes in general.
Of course, you also have people like me. I am a first-generation American, of Cuban heritage. My father (and the rest of the family) fled their home country in 1962 after a "socialist" government seized their land, businesses and assets. So it is very difficult for me, personally, to accept any socialistic system of government. It is, I suppose, one of the inherent realities of being a member of a large and massively heterogeneous state.
But when you put educated people in a situation where they like their job, and provide them with enough salary to feel respected, then you end up with a totally different system.
There are ******** in every corner, ofc, but mostly people who get treated with respect will give it back too.
But yeah, I get your scepticism, and espescially considering your heritage.
When you get fucked by a system, it's natural to feel reluctant when things move in that direction.
But trust me, if governed properly, a public health care system works a lot better then a privatized.
Consider this:
How many people get filthy rich over this system now? The doctors, hospital leaders and insurance ********, and probably a lot more people.
All this money will be spent throughout the system, and nobody will get assfucked when the insurance companies say "no, sorry, you didn't call us first, so you gotta pay for this yourself".
If you're sick, you get help, and there's nobody sitting at home earning millions of dollars a year on your suffering.
They say, the Norwegian health care system is so good, Moore wouldn't include it in "Sicko" because it seemed too unreal. It's only an extra on the DVD.
And trust me, the system IS that good.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2011, 07:10 PM
#30
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
I'm BACCCKK
OK so here is what I was trying to say before:
Screw this false "pro democracy world police ****"
The USA should flat out take over other countries and us USA citizens should prosper. Stability in the middle east? Achieve it by bombing the **** out of it, leveling it to the ground, and colonizing the whole north of africa and western asia.
What's the point of having a kickass military if the only ones profiting are the military contractors? I say **** it, pillage the ever living **** out of the middle east and the whole damn world and let us all retire on $500,000/year government stipends.
I'm sure some type of USA post-colonization government could actually positively adapt to local customs and religions etc, and benefit could be had by all. For instance, English colonies actually benefited greatly from being owned by the crown. Same goes for other empires.
The USA empire sucks compared to other great empires of the past that didn't pussyfoot around. Why lie? The USA should just flat out take over countries for THE MONEY and say so.
If anyone thinks I'm a hippy, obviously they're wrong. I do not like people getting blown the **** up for bullshit reasons and I think all the wars after the vietnam war have been for bullshit reasons, with little apparent benefit to the "common folk" of the USA.
OK so here is what I was trying to say before:
Screw this false "pro democracy world police ****"
The USA should flat out take over other countries and us USA citizens should prosper. Stability in the middle east? Achieve it by bombing the **** out of it, leveling it to the ground, and colonizing the whole north of africa and western asia.
What's the point of having a kickass military if the only ones profiting are the military contractors? I say **** it, pillage the ever living **** out of the middle east and the whole damn world and let us all retire on $500,000/year government stipends.
I'm sure some type of USA post-colonization government could actually positively adapt to local customs and religions etc, and benefit could be had by all. For instance, English colonies actually benefited greatly from being owned by the crown. Same goes for other empires.
The USA empire sucks compared to other great empires of the past that didn't pussyfoot around. Why lie? The USA should just flat out take over countries for THE MONEY and say so.
If anyone thinks I'm a hippy, obviously they're wrong. I do not like people getting blown the **** up for bullshit reasons and I think all the wars after the vietnam war have been for bullshit reasons, with little apparent benefit to the "common folk" of the USA.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2011, 08:52 PM
#31
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
There was a really interesting post in the thread that was linked to re: Expedition across the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Here's the link: http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...7&postcount=23
Summary: husband and wife from Belgium who frequently go on Top-Gear-style adventures driving their Land Cruiser across treacherous routes are currently headed across DR Congo. Thus far, it's consisted mostly of being accosted by beggars, corrupt local officials demanding bribes, hostile crowds as a result of not giving bribes, etc.
Mind you, DR Congo is considered to be the single richest country in the entire world in terms of natural resources, possessing an estimated US$24 trillion in mineral reserves.
Here's an excerpt (emphasis added to the relevant bits):
Cliff's notes: man who lives in DR Congo says that life was better for them during the period when they were subjugated by Belgium as a colony, and that since gaining "freedom" their lives have all gone to ****.
Summary: husband and wife from Belgium who frequently go on Top-Gear-style adventures driving their Land Cruiser across treacherous routes are currently headed across DR Congo. Thus far, it's consisted mostly of being accosted by beggars, corrupt local officials demanding bribes, hostile crowds as a result of not giving bribes, etc.
Mind you, DR Congo is considered to be the single richest country in the entire world in terms of natural resources, possessing an estimated US$24 trillion in mineral reserves.
Here's an excerpt (emphasis added to the relevant bits):
Not all is bad though. Occasionally (and I must admit, it was a rare event) we meet nice people. Like this guy on his bike.
He stopped to say hello. He was a well educated person who previsouly worked as an accountant for a big company. The company is no longer there so now he survives like everybody else by trading a few things.
He was a good example of the older generation. Theygrew up in a prosperous (relative) Congo and have seen it go downhill. They still have the pride every person should have. The younger generation grew up in disastrously f*cked up country and lack the pride. Why should they, they know they do not get any chances?
It is that old generation that longs back to the colonial time. They acknowledge there were a lot of problems in that period and that they were discriminated by the white colonisator. But at least they had a functional country. They had roads and schools. They had jobs and could buy supplies. And above all, there was stability. Now there is nothing but uncertainty.. waiting for the next war to start.
He stopped to say hello. He was a well educated person who previsouly worked as an accountant for a big company. The company is no longer there so now he survives like everybody else by trading a few things.
He was a good example of the older generation. Theygrew up in a prosperous (relative) Congo and have seen it go downhill. They still have the pride every person should have. The younger generation grew up in disastrously f*cked up country and lack the pride. Why should they, they know they do not get any chances?
It is that old generation that longs back to the colonial time. They acknowledge there were a lot of problems in that period and that they were discriminated by the white colonisator. But at least they had a functional country. They had roads and schools. They had jobs and could buy supplies. And above all, there was stability. Now there is nothing but uncertainty.. waiting for the next war to start.
Cliff's notes: man who lives in DR Congo says that life was better for them during the period when they were subjugated by Belgium as a colony, and that since gaining "freedom" their lives have all gone to ****.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2011, 08:55 PM
#32
Not sure about how EU does it, since Norway isn't a part of it. Our massive oil wealth makes the people very reluctant to vote us into the Union. Those bastards will bleed us dry, and it's our pension fund they're gonna bleed.
Also it will open the borders for all the old "socialist" states that used to be under the USSR, and to say the least: They're already causing enough issues here.
Norway has about as much money invested from the oil as you have in debt, so it's not really an issue we hear much about. I don't know more then you do, since I also only hear about this through media.
Also it will open the borders for all the old "socialist" states that used to be under the USSR, and to say the least: They're already causing enough issues here.
Norway has about as much money invested from the oil as you have in debt, so it's not really an issue we hear much about. I don't know more then you do, since I also only hear about this through media.
You don't vote yourselves into the union because your country is wealthy. Consider how a wealthy individual feels when they are forced to pay for poor people's health. It is exactly this.
Your healthcare system is NOT socialized. It is financed by your natural resources and NOT your wealthy.
Insurance providers are NOT evil. Their sole existence was simply to provide a service to individuals. No insurance company has ever forced a person to buy insurance. Government is evil. Government forces people to pay for auto insurance (which isn't necessarily a terrible thing, it's good to know when someone T-Bones me at an intersection, they're going to be able to afford my car.) Government has forced health insurers into situations where they are required to operate at a substantial loss as a significant part of their business. Since no business can survive at a substantial loss, insurance companies must, as a matter of fact, raise insurance prices for those individuals. Again, it was government that said that insurance couldn't hike up rates for these individuals. The only way to return to break-even or profitability is to raise insurance rates for EVERYONE, effectively making the healthy pay for the sick. Left to their own devices, the insurance companies would rightfully stop offering their service to those people who require the companies to operate at a loss, and insurance premiums for average people would have remained at very affordable rates.
What it boils down to is that individuals should be responsible for their own health. Insurance is merely a way for those individuals to be responsible for their health in fixed monthly payments instead of in huge lump sums, effectively reducing the risk of an astronomical health bill to any single individual.
Smart, healthy people know this, and so they stop paying for insurance and have their own health savings accounts. On average they pay far less money this way. Since the healthy people stop buying insurance (read: low cost, high profit group of individuals), insurance prices again go up for the unhealthy people.
No matter what the government tries to do, health insurance remains unaffordable for those people that *need* it. This is free market economy at its best.
Reply
0
0
04-03-2011, 11:54 PM
#33
Of course, genocide has been going on in Africa forever and know body seems to know/care. I would have no problem going there to stop that sort of suffering.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
__________________________________________________ _______________
On a not really related side note, I'd just like to point out how ridiculously ironic it is that people who lean more then a little to the right tend to be very Christin, yet throw a **** fit whenever anyone wants to do anything for the good of the less fortunate in this country. As in, raise taxes in order to feed the poor, give health care to anyone who wants / needs it, open homeless shelters, put mental-ill peoples mental hospitals (I'm lookin' at you Reagan), or act in the benefit of those who need it. Doesn't that one book by King James or whoever touch on this stuff?
This^ should be brought up whenever anyone asks "why don't we take care of our own before going to help other countries people?"
I don't mean the above as a blanket statement of all Christians, or religious people, just those who act hypocritically. If you asked me (gun to my head) what religion I identify with, I'd say Christian, just to be transparent.
*Haven't really proof read this, if I misspelled something then I meant to and that is the way it will be spelled from now on, understand?
Reply
0
0
04-04-2011, 12:20 AM
#34
The act of giving to help the less fortunate shouldn't be forced upon us by government regardless of religion. Forced charity creates what we call the "underclass" whereby people know that if they do (or don't do) "A", then the government charity will help them out by increasing compulsory donations.
Without a forced charity, the underclass knows that they likely have to beg/ask for help if they decide not to work. Effectively, this makes them HAVE TO WORK (by begging/asking/etc) in order to still survive.
Consider "unemployment", which I deem to be one of the biggest crocks of **** that the gov't has going on right now. My dad worked at a ready-mix concrete plant for quite some time, and was basically the second in charge at this small plant. They were trying to hire workers because.....well, because they didn't have enough workers. He told me about multiple occasions where someone would apply, have their background checked out, come in, interview, and be offered a job, and he would recieve the response:
"Well, I've got 8 more months of unemployment left, so I don't think I'm going to accept the position now. I'll check back with you when I've got about a month left."
Think about that.
If we got rid of "unemployment" (or substantially cut benefits, to, say: $75/week for 8 weeks maximum,) not only would billy-bob accept a job because he couldn't collect any more benefits, but unemployment payroll taxes would be nearly eliminated, thus making cheaper the actual cost of hiring additional employees, or alternatively, offering those employees higher wages.
The only way to get rid of unemployment benefits (the biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now) is to also get rid of "federal minimum wage" (the second biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now). As soon as you do this, our economy will double back around and hit a sustained 5-8% growth rate in the next 3-5 years. **** will get tough temporarily as we move to that point because stubborn americans don't want to work for $5/hr, (Actually, we Americans as a general statement are too goddamn stubborn to work for ANY wage rate) but the price of consumer commodities will very quickly drop to a point where mom and dad can still afford food, water, shelter, and heat.
Wages for government jobs (like mine) also need to be reduced significantly to mirror the economy. In a perfectly governed economy, a person should be completely apathetic about getting either of two identical jobs, one in the government sector and one in the private sector. This effectively means that if Joe sees that the government job is going to be much more secure in the long run, then the complete benefits/wage package offered by the government job should be noticeably reduced to the point where Joe is indecisive about which job he wants.
Without a forced charity, the underclass knows that they likely have to beg/ask for help if they decide not to work. Effectively, this makes them HAVE TO WORK (by begging/asking/etc) in order to still survive.
Consider "unemployment", which I deem to be one of the biggest crocks of **** that the gov't has going on right now. My dad worked at a ready-mix concrete plant for quite some time, and was basically the second in charge at this small plant. They were trying to hire workers because.....well, because they didn't have enough workers. He told me about multiple occasions where someone would apply, have their background checked out, come in, interview, and be offered a job, and he would recieve the response:
"Well, I've got 8 more months of unemployment left, so I don't think I'm going to accept the position now. I'll check back with you when I've got about a month left."
Think about that.
If we got rid of "unemployment" (or substantially cut benefits, to, say: $75/week for 8 weeks maximum,) not only would billy-bob accept a job because he couldn't collect any more benefits, but unemployment payroll taxes would be nearly eliminated, thus making cheaper the actual cost of hiring additional employees, or alternatively, offering those employees higher wages.
The only way to get rid of unemployment benefits (the biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now) is to also get rid of "federal minimum wage" (the second biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now). As soon as you do this, our economy will double back around and hit a sustained 5-8% growth rate in the next 3-5 years. **** will get tough temporarily as we move to that point because stubborn americans don't want to work for $5/hr, (Actually, we Americans as a general statement are too goddamn stubborn to work for ANY wage rate) but the price of consumer commodities will very quickly drop to a point where mom and dad can still afford food, water, shelter, and heat.
Wages for government jobs (like mine) also need to be reduced significantly to mirror the economy. In a perfectly governed economy, a person should be completely apathetic about getting either of two identical jobs, one in the government sector and one in the private sector. This effectively means that if Joe sees that the government job is going to be much more secure in the long run, then the complete benefits/wage package offered by the government job should be noticeably reduced to the point where Joe is indecisive about which job he wants.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2011, 12:39 AM
#35
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
I agree, (innocent) people shouldn't die as a byproduct of war. Also, people shouldn't die as a result of someone else's misguided exploitation of a legitimate religion. But, when people can not live in shifty due to their governments tyranny (for lack of a better word popping into my head), those who are in a position help should do so. If you saw a child being beaten by his or her father would you not intervene? Sure, if your efforts fail dad may be even harder on the kid as a result, but you couldn't just let it go. We as Americans, (pertains to many countries, using 'Merka as example) are very lucky for many reasons, because of this "luck" we have an obligation to help those less fortunate then ourselves, altruistically. This doesn't just pertain to "surprise liberations" but also natural disasters etc. (Nobody ever bitches when your cleaning up someone else's country after an earthquake, but kill a man that used nerve gas on men, women, and children resulting in genocide, and all the sudden your the worlds bully) Think about how it wold feel to get Sarin gas dumped on you and your family, that sort of thing should never happen.
Of course, genocide has been going on in Africa forever and know body seems to know/care. I would have no problem going there to stop that sort of suffering.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
Of course, genocide has been going on in Africa forever and know body seems to know/care. I would have no problem going there to stop that sort of suffering.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
I also don't really believe in the absolute existence of morals, and good and evil. I think those are abstract notions that conceptualize and imprint upon individuals the rudimentary requirements for a functional society. In short, if everyone ***** each other over egregiously, society doesn't work. Having a group of people that behaves within a moral framework and praises good acts and discourages evil acts allows a collective to accomplish things disparate individuals can not. I think that morals etc are actually the logical rationalization of genetically imprinted instinctual behavior- to encourage behavior that benefits the society and reject behavior that does not.
I have no problem with people, "innocent" or not dying as a result of war. I have a problem with the USA going into debt from wars instead of fattening itself up. Me, personally, I want my life to be sweet and cushy. Don't you?
Reply
0
0
04-04-2011, 12:45 AM
#36
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
This.
You don't vote yourselves into the union because your country is wealthy. Consider how a wealthy individual feels when they are forced to pay for poor people's health. It is exactly this.
Your healthcare system is NOT socialized. It is financed by your natural resources and NOT your wealthy.
Insurance providers are NOT evil. Their sole existence was simply to provide a service to individuals. No insurance company has ever forced a person to buy insurance. Government is evil. Government forces people to pay for auto insurance (which isn't necessarily a terrible thing, it's good to know when someone T-Bones me at an intersection, they're going to be able to afford my car.) Government has forced health insurers into situations where they are required to operate at a substantial loss as a significant part of their business. Since no business can survive at a substantial loss, insurance companies must, as a matter of fact, raise insurance prices for those individuals. Again, it was government that said that insurance couldn't hike up rates for these individuals. The only way to return to break-even or profitability is to raise insurance rates for EVERYONE, effectively making the healthy pay for the sick. Left to their own devices, the insurance companies would rightfully stop offering their service to those people who require the companies to operate at a loss, and insurance premiums for average people would have remained at very affordable rates.
What it boils down to is that individuals should be responsible for their own health. Insurance is merely a way for those individuals to be responsible for their health in fixed monthly payments instead of in huge lump sums, effectively reducing the risk of an astronomical health bill to any single individual.
Smart, healthy people know this, and so they stop paying for insurance and have their own health savings accounts. On average they pay far less money this way. Since the healthy people stop buying insurance (read: low cost, high profit group of individuals), insurance prices again go up for the unhealthy people.
No matter what the government tries to do, health insurance remains unaffordable for those people that *need* it. This is free market economy at its best.
You don't vote yourselves into the union because your country is wealthy. Consider how a wealthy individual feels when they are forced to pay for poor people's health. It is exactly this.
Your healthcare system is NOT socialized. It is financed by your natural resources and NOT your wealthy.
Insurance providers are NOT evil. Their sole existence was simply to provide a service to individuals. No insurance company has ever forced a person to buy insurance. Government is evil. Government forces people to pay for auto insurance (which isn't necessarily a terrible thing, it's good to know when someone T-Bones me at an intersection, they're going to be able to afford my car.) Government has forced health insurers into situations where they are required to operate at a substantial loss as a significant part of their business. Since no business can survive at a substantial loss, insurance companies must, as a matter of fact, raise insurance prices for those individuals. Again, it was government that said that insurance couldn't hike up rates for these individuals. The only way to return to break-even or profitability is to raise insurance rates for EVERYONE, effectively making the healthy pay for the sick. Left to their own devices, the insurance companies would rightfully stop offering their service to those people who require the companies to operate at a loss, and insurance premiums for average people would have remained at very affordable rates.
What it boils down to is that individuals should be responsible for their own health. Insurance is merely a way for those individuals to be responsible for their health in fixed monthly payments instead of in huge lump sums, effectively reducing the risk of an astronomical health bill to any single individual.
Smart, healthy people know this, and so they stop paying for insurance and have their own health savings accounts. On average they pay far less money this way. Since the healthy people stop buying insurance (read: low cost, high profit group of individuals), insurance prices again go up for the unhealthy people.
No matter what the government tries to do, health insurance remains unaffordable for those people that *need* it. This is free market economy at its best.
Also dude, what about employers that pay for your health insurance? Don't have an employer that does? Come on man, join corporate USA!!!
I <3 corporate america! Seriously
Reply
0
0
04-04-2011, 12:49 AM
#37
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
The ban hammer remains safely sheathed.
As a matter of historical precedent, the US finds itself today in much the same position as Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries, and even Rome at the dawn of the first millennium. We have, perhaps unintentionally, become a so-called "superpower."
As a matter of historical precedent, the US finds itself today in much the same position as Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries, and even Rome at the dawn of the first millennium. We have, perhaps unintentionally, become a so-called "superpower."
ISN'T IT ABOUT TIME TO ******* PROFIT THEN!!?!?!
Reply
0
0
04-04-2011, 01:07 AM
#38
The act of giving to help the less fortunate shouldn't be forced upon us by government regardless of religion. Forced charity creates what we call the "underclass" whereby people know that if they do (or don't do) "A", then the government charity will help them out by increasing compulsory donations.
"I was really just talking about the irony of some people in terms of their religious beliefs not lining up with their politics."
Without a forced charity, the underclass knows that they likely have to beg/ask for help if they decide not to work. Effectively, this makes them HAVE TO WORK (by begging/asking/etc) in order to still survive.
"In Ohio the unemployment rate was around 9%-10% last time I checked, most of that is not due to people not being motivated to work, it is due to a lack of jobs."
Consider "unemployment", which I deem to be one of the biggest crocks of **** that the gov't has going on right now. My dad worked at a ready-mix concrete plant for quite some time, and was basically the second in charge at this small plant. They were trying to hire workers because.....well, because they didn't have enough workers. He told me about multiple occasions where someone would apply, have their background checked out, come in, interview, and be offered a job, and he would recieve the response:
"Well, I've got 8 more months of unemployment left, so I don't think I'm going to accept the position now. I'll check back with you when I've got about a month left."
Think about that.
^"That's a good point, the system does get duked, which is wrong. When I talk about helping people, I mean people that need it, not people who take advantage of the system."
If we got rid of "unemployment" (or substantially cut benefits, to, say: $75/week for 8 weeks maximum,)...
Then you'll take care of the people taking advantage of the system, but you'll also put innocent people on the street with barely enough $ for food. Instead, how bout the unemployment office A) keeps tabs on beneficiaries, so when they get the job at an interview, they have the option of taking the job and getting no more unemployment, or not taking the job and not getting unemployment. B) in the mean time, between starting unemployment and getting interviewed/getting hired, the beneficiary works for the Gov. Time to collect unemployment, time to clean.
The only way to get rid of unemployment benefits (the biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now) is to also get rid of "federal minimum wage" (the second biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now). As soon as you do this, our economy will double back around and hit a sustained 5-8% growth rate in the next 3-5 years. **** will get tough temporarily as we move to that point because stubborn americans don't want to work for $5/hr, (Actually, we Americans as a general statement are too goddamn stubborn to work for ANY wage rate) but the price of consumer commodities will very quickly drop to a point where mom and dad can still afford food, water, shelter, and heat.
Sorry but I don't buy any of that. $5/hr @ full time is $10,400, below the poverty line before taxes, well below the poverty line after taxes. Lowering the min. wage might give businesses the opportunity to lower the prices of goods, but that sure as hell doesn't mean they will. Communism also worked in theory, but it also doesn't take into account the inherent factor of human greed. This would only help the rich get richer, and make the poor poorer.
Wages for government jobs (like mine) also need to be reduced significantly to mirror the economy. In a perfectly governed economy, a person should be completely apathetic about getting either of two identical jobs, one in the government sector and one in the private sector. This effectively means that if Joe sees that the government job is going to be much more secure in the long run, then the complete benefits/wage package offered by the government job should be noticeably reduced to the point where Joe is indecisive about which job he wants.
"I was really just talking about the irony of some people in terms of their religious beliefs not lining up with their politics."
Without a forced charity, the underclass knows that they likely have to beg/ask for help if they decide not to work. Effectively, this makes them HAVE TO WORK (by begging/asking/etc) in order to still survive.
"In Ohio the unemployment rate was around 9%-10% last time I checked, most of that is not due to people not being motivated to work, it is due to a lack of jobs."
Consider "unemployment", which I deem to be one of the biggest crocks of **** that the gov't has going on right now. My dad worked at a ready-mix concrete plant for quite some time, and was basically the second in charge at this small plant. They were trying to hire workers because.....well, because they didn't have enough workers. He told me about multiple occasions where someone would apply, have their background checked out, come in, interview, and be offered a job, and he would recieve the response:
"Well, I've got 8 more months of unemployment left, so I don't think I'm going to accept the position now. I'll check back with you when I've got about a month left."
Think about that.
^"That's a good point, the system does get duked, which is wrong. When I talk about helping people, I mean people that need it, not people who take advantage of the system."
If we got rid of "unemployment" (or substantially cut benefits, to, say: $75/week for 8 weeks maximum,)...
Then you'll take care of the people taking advantage of the system, but you'll also put innocent people on the street with barely enough $ for food. Instead, how bout the unemployment office A) keeps tabs on beneficiaries, so when they get the job at an interview, they have the option of taking the job and getting no more unemployment, or not taking the job and not getting unemployment. B) in the mean time, between starting unemployment and getting interviewed/getting hired, the beneficiary works for the Gov. Time to collect unemployment, time to clean.
The only way to get rid of unemployment benefits (the biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now) is to also get rid of "federal minimum wage" (the second biggest crock of **** the gov't has going on right now). As soon as you do this, our economy will double back around and hit a sustained 5-8% growth rate in the next 3-5 years. **** will get tough temporarily as we move to that point because stubborn americans don't want to work for $5/hr, (Actually, we Americans as a general statement are too goddamn stubborn to work for ANY wage rate) but the price of consumer commodities will very quickly drop to a point where mom and dad can still afford food, water, shelter, and heat.
Sorry but I don't buy any of that. $5/hr @ full time is $10,400, below the poverty line before taxes, well below the poverty line after taxes. Lowering the min. wage might give businesses the opportunity to lower the prices of goods, but that sure as hell doesn't mean they will. Communism also worked in theory, but it also doesn't take into account the inherent factor of human greed. This would only help the rich get richer, and make the poor poorer.
Wages for government jobs (like mine) also need to be reduced significantly to mirror the economy. In a perfectly governed economy, a person should be completely apathetic about getting either of two identical jobs, one in the government sector and one in the private sector. This effectively means that if Joe sees that the government job is going to be much more secure in the long run, then the complete benefits/wage package offered by the government job should be noticeably reduced to the point where Joe is indecisive about which job he wants.
My stuffs in caps since I failed at quoting for some reason.
Reply
0
0
04-04-2011, 01:34 AM
#39
I don't believe in morals absolutely in the sense that everyone has the same morals, more that my morals should be universal since they are the ones that I view as being right. I don't think morals are abstract, at least not to us humans. If they where so abstract then why would we be so obsessed with them?
I want my life to be sweet and cushy, but not at the expense of others, I'm an empathetic person. I see the people that have no problem with others suffering as scum in a way; unfit to live that sweet cushy life, and not much better then the people that would directly cause suffering. It's nothing personal.
Now I'm in the mood to listen to some Metal..
Reply
0
0
