Dave34 wrote:MadAce wrote:Dave34 wrote:I want answers not questions damnit
How can you ever have the correct answers when you're unwilling to ask the corect questions.
If I answered every question you asked with another question I'd feel pretty awesome too wouldn't I? Oh Snap! I just did!
I have enough information to answer my question. THis reply and your other blah blah was more than enough input.
Why I think your opinions are inferior to mine:
By suggesting I always answer a question with a question after I only did it once you've proven you can't use basic deductive reasoning in a manner that preceeds the ability of primitive primates.
Thus it's safe for me to assume that considering the immense gravity of your errors there is a pattern of stupidity in what you say.
You didn't even realize you were answering the question while not formally answering the question. If you'd just answered the question you would've come out of it a lot better.
Dave34 wrote:
Their are winners and losers in life,
Where you got that line from? An 80's preteen sports movie? Seriously, that's about the most stupid one-dimensional platitude I ever heard.
Why you think this simplistic crap is even in the slightest related to reality?
Dave34 wrote:from what I have heard and read socialism wants everyone to be winners, but in that sense no one would win, the government would.
Then you should either listen better or listen to someone who isn't talking out of their donkey (please tell this someone to see a neurologist as I fear the worst for their brain). That's not what socialism is about.
Dave34 wrote:I'm going to double post here...
My view of socialism would be this:
Say Toonces changed it to where you didn't get experience from colonies, Instead everyone would get the same experience at all times, no matter how many colonies you have you will have the same xp as everyone else. And when you died you didn't lose xp, and the person that killed you didn't get experience, their is no competition, that is what my view on socialism is, and I don't want America a competitionless place where no one wins, and no one loses. In life their has to be winners and losers, its the way the world works, even if everyone thinks their "winning", they aren't, they are losing, the government is winning.
That has nothing to do with socialism. Stop making things up.
Dave34 wrote:Socialized health care... Ok, free health care for everyone right? nice huh? when you look at it, the population of America is HUGE, if the government manages to pay for all of it, we Americans would be getting the shittiest health care, and the rich could pay for theirs.
Dave34 wrote:What I was saying was that the government wouldn't pay for the surgery, I don't know about the netherlands, but I would assume their population is smaller than canada's and would result in being able to get the needed healthcare easier, and when your saying everyone is getting healthcare, that means... EVERYONE.
The size of the population is irrelevant. If you have more people you also have more people paying taxes and thus a proportional increase in tax revenue.
To put it with an extremely simple example:
If you have a country with a 100 people with a total tax revenue of 1000 (10 per person) and a health care cost of 1 per person then you'd have a total health care cost of 100 leaving you with 900 tax revenue after paying the total health care cost.
If you have a country with a 1000 people with a total tax revenue of 10000 (10 per person) and a health care cost of 1 per person then you'd have a total health care cost of 1000 leaving you with 9000 tax revenue after paying the total health care cost.
In a few years when you get to junior high you'll learn about this basic thing called "scalability" like I did in grade school.
I'd attack your conclusions, but since they're based on nothing at all I don't have to.
Dave34 wrote:One of my teachers had a brother that lived in canada where they had socialized health care, and he had to get heart sugery done, but one of the people on the "death boards", as tekkamanblade has said, told him he could not have the surgery preformed, because the risk was to great, fortunately his family members in the U.S. paid for his opperation and he had the surgery and is fine.
I don't do unprovable anecdotal evidence. Especially not anecdotal evidence that seems to be coming from a universe with the same universal laws as a cartoon (meaning intensely simplistic). BTW, get a better teachers, because this guy shouldn't even be allowed to explain donkey-wiping to toddlers.
Dave34 wrote:
You people on the left saying socialized health care will keep people alive are living in a lie, once the government has controll of your healthcare, they have controll of your lives...
Socialism is limiting your freedom one step at a time, sure it seems harmless at first but it could easily lead to more severe limits of freedom.
Stop spewing brain-dead platitudes and please provide real statistics, real prove and real arguments for your claims.
It's getting sad and embarrassing.
devilwolf wrote:McGrod wrote:Theres obviously a lot of anger against 'socialism' I am thinking it must mean something very different in the US. So I can follow this could someone (preferably an American) state what they call Socialism without resorting to terms like nanny state.
short version: I worked hard, put myself through higher education. Now, due to regressive taxation, my income is taken at a much higher rate, in order to pay for the things that someone else (be it lazy, whatever) wants, through the govt. taking my money to pay for it, be it nationalized healthcare ( I have a job, my employer pays his part, i pay mine), medicade, medicare, food stamps, FAMIS, low income housing allowence, etc.... I dont mind helping those who hit hard times, i.e. unemployment benifits (as the employer pays into this to) but to the ones that DO NOT want to help themselves, why is my money going to them?
Wealth redistribution doesn't have anything to do with socialism per se.
BTW, The US, without universal health care, spends more on its tax revenue on non-universal health care than "socialist" countries do on theirs.
Also (and this is a more interesting discussion) a reasoning for the kind of wealth redistribution you talked about would be that it's a more effective and more aggressive way of dealing with social issues. It's more effective to help a family when they're down on their luck before they become homeless than it is to help them after they become so. Same goes for helping people before they resort to crime than after. It's basic maths.
nine-breaker wrote:
Im tired of hearing this BBQ...
Say some where in america there is a gang fight, everyone gets shot, everyone is rushed to the e.r. and everyone one lived. and only 1 of the people, out of 6 gangsters had some kind of health insurance. the 5 that didnt have insurance arent going to get kicked out of the hostpital because they cant pay, they are going to get the same treatment as the insured guy. However, upon release date, when the doctor says they are free to go, it will be put on the 5 un-insured peoples credit, that they couldnt pay, and that they still owe.
Like i said, no one is out on the streets dying, unless they want to be
You provide your own words and back nothing up. Your life must be so simple if you don't have to reality-check anything you say.
Your example would only be "fair" if it were a choice to get or not get health insurance. People are denied insurance by the dead boards, I mean insurance companies.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Hell, they can even kill you.
How is it fair to be paying for the rest of your life because companies can deny you health insurance? I don't think it's fair to have your life be bankrupted just because something you have no control over, insurance companies, almost arbitrarily deny you coverage.
devilwolf wrote:
no, i'm against the fact that i have to pay for someone to lazy to work and pay for their self. And, in the USA, no one is denied health coverage if they go to the Emergency Room, whether they have insurance, job, whatever, which, means, that when i go to E.R., hospital for whatever reason, I pay more to cover those that dont.
You have no proof people experience misfortune due to laziness. Nor have you proof of the contrary.
Why then do you knowingly choose to interpret their misfortune to be of their own fault? Is it because it absolves you of being a good person?
nine-breaker wrote:America isnt near as bad as what the news in all your other countries make it out to be, I just wish you all were intelligent enough to see this.
Prove to me the news "in all of our countries" is biased against the US?
tekkamanblade wrote:i dont need a government to protect me or my point of view madace, me and my unregistered guns and acres of booby traps can handle ourselves.
It always amuses me to no end that people like you always assume that your makeshift defenses (already a tactical error) will protect you against a determined and professional assault, even in a lawless society. Wishful thinking FTW.
nine-breaker wrote:governments are self serving and parasitic institutions.
Simplistic and unproven platitude.
tekkamanblade wrote:there is no such thing as free in the real world, you all know that.
True in this particular case (otherwise it's a platitude). I think it has been misnamed. I would've gone for "efficient health care".
tekkamanblade wrote:when it is your own money to spend on your own medical treatments, you have many more options.
Prove it. Which options do you think are being denied to me, for example, being from a country with universal health care?
tekkamanblade wrote:any time someone else's money is involved, their representatives will be there to ensure you don't get to spend much (or any) of it. this already happens with private companies, so how can you think it won't be worse under government control (as every other "service" they "provide" is) ?
Why do you assume it would be worse with democratically elected governments? After all, logic would suggest that governments don't have profit to think about. Statistics suggest that things like life expectancy and childbirth deaths are consistently respectively higher and lower in countries with universal health care.
tekkamanblade wrote:
of course you will still have the option of paying for your own treatments even once they deny you, but there will be no way to opt out of paying the increased taxes funding everyone else's treatments.
Nor are you able to opt out for taxes for the military, police, roads, fire departments, ... Do you advocate abolishing those too?
tekkamanblade wrote:
so in actuality, most people will see an INCREASE in the cost of their health care after you factor in this "double billing" effect.
Must see:
Remember that the US
doesn't have universal health care.