-->
@Greyparrot
the main reasons things are so bad for so many in the usa
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@n8nrgim
That study is a broken link. I want to know if there's longer times for elective surgeries or emergency medical care. These are the wait times that really matter. I really don't care about longer wait times to see a GP for non urgent healthcare when you can get the same thing done by the next available NP which is trained to handle 99% of all healthcare issues. Usually you can get an available NP in a few days at the most for non-urgent healthcare. At least where I live.
-->
@Sidewalker
Trump said he would reduce the debt as President, he increased the debt by $7.8 Trillion.
He's trying to fix military spending for Putin maybe.
Claim made by me - Trump is trying to get nayo countries to increase military spending to be 2% of their GDP
Your response- this means that Russia would increase their military spending
Russia is not part of Nato smooth brain.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the main way other countries have affordable care that covers everyone, is because they regulate costs. so your theory that it can't be done, is for practical purposes disproven. it's just an abstract theory, im sure there are some good points about the theory that sometimes works in some situations, but it's disproven by the way things are done.
we'll have to agree to disagree on charity v social contract. i can't see how you think it's fair for the governmetn to deprive people of natural resources, even if the resources are privately held, and not compensate proportioanlly in response. yes a farmer would shoot trespassers, but the tresspassers up to a point have a natural right to shoot back. that's the key. you say we steal by taxation at gunpoint... you deprive people of resources at gun point. it's the government by force teling people they can't have God's creation.
why do you keep arguing we should do laissez faire libetarianism if you can't show any examples? i already showed you that there are none that exist now. do you think every developed country is wrong and you are the sole beacon of truth? how arrogant can you be? maybe it worked good enough in our early pioneer days, but back then if you wanted land you could take it etc. we have massive populations and for practical purposes a free market isn't workable. it's an untested theory, at best, that you want to foist on everyone.
i mean no offense to you personally, as you are very intelligent... but all these hoops you jump through to argue, is why i call libertarians clowns.
-->
@n8nrgim
is because they regulate costs
In the real world of the economics of supply and demand, there is no possible way to regulate costs without also regulating services, whether intentional or not. And this principle isn't just limited to healthcare. Rent control is a proven example of this.
If you want more bang for the buck, there is only one solution. Remove the middlemen, remove red-tape, and provide choices. Government management fails to do any of those things. Especially a government as corrupt and unresponsive as ours.
-->
@n8nrgim
the main way other countries have affordable care that covers everyone, is because they regulate costs. so your theory that it can't be done, is for practical purposes disproven.
They do not regulate costs because that cannot be done. They shift costs, and whether the way they steal is more efficient than the way the US steals is not something I have claimed. In fact I think their system is less corrupt and more efficient.
it's just an abstract theory
Like money, and no matter what you write on a price sticker the product it is affixed to still takes the same amount of resources and effort to produce. Doctors and nurses in Europe have to work and study just as hard. Drug factories have to be just as carefully designed. It's not any easier for them, they just have less parasites attached.
That is a reason to switch from our even more parasitised system to theirs, but it's an even better reason to switch to a system with little to no parasites.
we'll have to agree to disagree on charity v social contract.
It's not charity vs social contract it's charity vs theft. There is a word for a social contract to mitigate health risks: Health insurance.
That doesn't cover every situation though, insurance works when people on average pay more or equal to average health costs. There are people who produce less than their healthcare costs.
That's not a social contract, that's like saying you're going to make a deal with a cripple that when he needs food you feed him and vice versa except he can't run a farm so he will never be able to feed you if you need it.
When you give someone something with the full knowledge that they cannot (or will not) pay you back in anyway (regardless of what may happen) that's charity.
i can't see how you think it's fair for the governmetn to deprive people of natural resources, even if the resources are privately held, and not compensate proportioanlly in response.
If it's wrong to take from people without giving back something proportional, then what is taxing the rich? You don't really think Jeff Bezos gets millions of dollars in government benefits do you?
yes a farmer would shoot trespassers, but the tresspassers up to a point have a natural right to shoot back. that's the key.
There is something very ironic about you admitting this while previously complaining that no civilized country could exist without following your moral theory. Your moral theory is based on theft and this proves it.
you say we steal by taxation at gunpoint... you deprive people of resources at gun point.
Natural resources are not the font of wealth, productivity is. Almost no wealth is available simply by having access to a natural resource, the exceptions are spectacular and interesting (a gold rush for example) but ultimately irrelevant.
So what you really mean is that you are being deprived of other people's product at counter-gunpoint. The key is that it's theft to take the natural property (person and product) of others without consent. You offer a dichotomy: Allow us to steal through government or allow us to steal directly.
This is a false dichotomy. We can exist without stealing. That is the difference between civilization and anarchy. Civilization has so far been imperfect because one thief has almost always been left: The state. Yet the vast majority of thieves are impeded. I say we can survive (and thrive) when there are no thieves. You say you need at least one thief since you're not allowed to be a thief in person.
it's the government by force teling people they can't have God's creation.
You think if they opened up the national parks to anyone who wanted to exploit them that you would find healthcare there?
i already showed you that there are none that exist now.
You have ignored relevant examples for invalid reasons.
do you think every developed country is wrong and you are the sole beacon of truth?
Logic + evidence is the sole beacon of truth. I follow those. It would be odd if I was the only one who could, but I am not. There is merchandise that says "taxes are theft", and I didn't design them.
It is not at all unprecedented that every developed country has been morally, practically, or scientifically wrong about something.
Flat earth and slavery come to mind.
It's also not unusual for a few independent thinkers to be right against the grain of their society.
how arrogant can you be?
Debate is for those who have realized the uselessness of the concepts of arrogance and humility in epistemology. The proof is in the pudding, well it's in the proof. Follow the logic, ignore the crowd and the ego.
maybe it worked good enough in our early pioneer days
1870 England is not "our early pioneer days"
it's an untested theory, at best, that you want to foist on everyone.
Like emancipation.
-->
@n8nrgim
We are slaves to society.
A truism per se.
We are slaves to evolution, which includes human society.
And also includes money and associated expectations.
And now technology...In fact we readily became slaves to all aspects of material evolution.
I would suggest that there never was an alternative.
Even though we might like to think that there was.
Do you think that we could modify the future?
Speaking solely from a global human perspective, I would suggest that the future will just occur as it will, relative to material and social development.
So we might come to past based conclusions and apply them... But isn't this is what we have always done?
Things are so bad.
Things are as they are.
A will be as they will be.
-->
@Benjamin
@n8nrgim
That's what I say. We're all enslaved in speaking of the commerce world.
People can try to debate that. They haven't even realized the prison that they've been born into. Their parents are enslaved and obligated to arrange for currency satisfaction to receive medical, obstetrician services.
-->
@WyIted
TRUMP one of the biggest kingpins in this prison.
I heard this person was obligated to pay a 350millon fine.
I heard this person was obligated to pay a 350millon fine.
-->
@IlDiavolo
There are so many that have figured to work to get support themselves without even doing forty hours.
-->
@Sidewalker
Didn't increase my debt. Every person is accountable for how much or little debt they have. Take the accountability.