U.S. Universal Healthcare

[Azarkon]

Just a short note about craptastic socialist policies in the US: I think you'll find that while socialist policies in the US have largely failed, they have largely succeeded in many other countries, especially in Asia. Could culture have something to do with it? I think so, and I also think that the reason socialist programs like free education and Medicaid have failed in the US has more to do with the efficiency of government agencies than with intrinsic flaws. The government needs only to guarantee the presence of universal free education. There is nothing wrong with privatizing the implementation.

[Lucius]

I don't know which nazi came by here, but it must be nice for dear taks to have one keeping him safe from those evil, evil post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there's a quote steeped in pure logic.

 

uh, hate to tell you, but nazism is socialism - the national socialist german workers party. i get a kick out of people that just don't understand that.

 

if you want to refer to one of us "right-wingers," you need to make a thinly veiled reference to italy and benito mussolini. he was a fascist, which is what right-wing economics is all about.

 

that you would prefer to lob insults as well is hardly a surprise. the least you could do is get it right.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fool, I was talking about which mod had deleted the post I made in response to your laughable threat about banning.

 

And Nazism wasn't really socialist, you know, it was as much fascism as their friends in Spain and Italy. You stupid enough to think that the SS was made up of socialists? Why, then, did they hate Communism so much? Why did the US get so many of their leaders out so they could help the allies against the USSR after WW2? In fact, are you suggesting they have something in common with socialists today?

 

No wait, I'll answer for you; They WEREN'T Socialists, they HATED the socialists. End of ****ing story you arrogant... fascist?

Edited November 15, 2005 by Lucius

[Walsingham]

Firstly, can we try to be civil here? I realise this is an emotive subject, but that is no excuse for bad manners. I say that as someone who once spent 14 hours straight having a face to face arguement on this precise topic. Indeed, I say that as someone who quite categorically would not be here at all without the free provision of superb healthcare on the NHS.

 

I should also say that a little focus would not go amiss. I only read these gargantuan posts because I have to. I don't know what purpose anyone thinks there is in making them as a means of swaying anyone's opinions, if they are practically unreadable.

 

*Sound of world's tiniest violin, playing just for Walsingham*

[random evil guy]

first, exactly how much education do you have?  i'm working on a phd, already a BS and an MS, all three in electrical engineering... so, exactly how unintelligent am i compared to you?

electrical engineering...? pretty much confirms my suspicions.

 

second, if right-wingers are so unintelligent, why are the top 20% income earners in the US primarily conservative?  guess what, these guys are also, not coincidentally, the most educated.

 

let's go through this:

1.provide source for your claim. otherwise it just another of your 'informed' statements on this board.

 

2.top income doesn't equal most educated; i.e. people with degrees in economics can make a lot of money, but i would hardly call them 'most educated' as economics isn't even a real science.

 

3.do you consider yourself to be selfish or do you refute the claim that all humans are different?

 

edit:

you mentioned ad hominem. if you could actually provide sources to back up your ridicilous claims, the personal insults would go away. you said 'lobbing insults' is a sign of losing an argument. how is that possible when you don't provide any sources? you repeat the same ole tired libertarian tirade that 'private is good, government is bad'.

 

why does health care work in both denmark and sweden then? they don't have oil, as norway have...

Edited November 15, 2005 by random evil guy

[random evil guy]

scandinavia also happens to be blessed with oil, accounting for 50% of norway's exports.

 

 

 

norway, not scandinavia.

[random evil guy]

I don't know which nazi came by here, but it must be nice for dear taks to have one keeping him safe from those evil, evil post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there's a quote steeped in pure logic.

 

uh, hate to tell you, but nazism is socialism - the national socialist german workers party. i get a kick out of people that just don't understand that.

 

 

 

wrong. socialism is not nazism, there are many, many ideological and philosophical differences between socialism and nazism.

 

not to mention, hitler didn't nationalise industries and trusts.

Edited November 15, 2005 by random evil guy

[taks]

why does health care work in both denmark and sweden then? they don't have oil, as norway have...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, i didn't say oil was the only reason, did i? no, but reading comprehension is... well...

 

denmark and sweden have more exports than imports, and i clearly stated that. please review.

 

taks

[taks]

electrical engineering...?  pretty much confirms my suspicions.

and what were those? that you need some catching up to do? with the exception of a few student loans and about 50% tuition from my folks for the first degree, i've payed for all of it out of my own pocket, too. the money was earned while working full time, as much as 90 hours/week at one point...

 

are you that industrious?

 

let's go through this:

1.provide source for your claim. otherwise it just another of your 'informed' statements on this board.

sometimes generally accepted correlations need no sources.

 

2.top income doesn't equal most educated; i.e. people with degrees in economics can make a lot of money, but i would hardly call them 'most educated' as economics isn't even a real science.

uh, it's still a degree, and most economists don't make diddly. lawyers, doctors and engineers, in that order, make the most money. most economists are now supply side, since it works, and that tends to imply conservative, btw...

 

3.do you consider yourself to be selfish or do you refute the claim that all humans are different?

yes, all humans are likewise selfish. study ayn rand. worth a read.

 

you mentioned ad hominem. if you could actually provide sources to back up your ridicilous claims, the personal insults would go away.

yeah, but i'm not childish enough to actually think an insult really does anything other than make me look like a fool... you keep lobbing them, you keep looking the part.

 

you said 'lobbing insults' is a sign of losing an argument.

it's also a sign of immaturity.

 

how is that possible when you don't provide any sources?

given that most of this is philosophical, sources really aren't a big deal. sources for what? the fact that every social program in the US is overspent and about to fail? sources that show the richest nations in the world either have massive natural resources at their beck and call or they have capitalist economies?

 

you repeat the same ole tired libertarian tirade that 'private is good, government is bad'.

tired, maybe, but true. government is there to protect us, not mother us.

 

why does health care work in both denmark and sweden then? they don't have oil, as norway have...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i've already made that clear. they have the added riches due to trade surpluses. duh.

 

taks

Edited November 15, 2005 by taks

[taks]

wrong. socialism is not nazism, there are many, many ideological and philosophical differences between socialism and nazism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i did not say socialism was nazism, i said nazism is based on socialism. the economic system was socialist. again with the reading comprehension thing...

 

taks

Edited November 15, 2005 by taks

[taks]

norway, not scandinavia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

norway is fully 25% of the population of scandinavia and a corresponding ratio of the GDP.

 

taks

[random evil guy]

norway, not scandinavia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

norway is fully 25% of the population of scandinavia and a corresponding ratio of the GDP.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

your point being?

[random evil guy]

wrong. socialism is not nazism, there are many, many ideological and philosophical differences between socialism and nazism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i did not say socialism was nazism, i said nazism is based on socialism. the economic system was socialist. again with the reading comprehension thing...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, you said nazism is socialism.

[Lucius]

wrong. socialism is not nazism, there are many, many ideological and philosophical differences between socialism and nazism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i did not say socialism was nazism, i said nazism is based on socialism. the economic system was socialist. again with the reading comprehension thing...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you didn't. You said

 

uh, hate to tell you, but nazism is socialism - the national socialist german workers party. i get a kick out of people that just don't understand that.

 

Now what was it about the reading comprehension again? Now there's something to get a kick out of.

 

Norway is 22% of Scandinavia, not that a few % matters, since they don't count as Scandinavia alone, and we don't get any of their oil money.

[random evil guy]

why does health care work in both denmark and sweden then? they don't have oil, as norway have...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

denmark and sweden have more exports than imports, and i clearly stated that. please review.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so do the us. again, what's your point?

[taks]

uh, you said scandinavia had working welfare state and i showed you why. norway, in particular, is oil rich. denmark and sweden are resource rich. all three together have what's known as a trade surplus...

 

taks

 

btw, try here if you'd like the primer on capitalism that you never had.

[taks]

Actually, you didn't. You said

 

uh, hate to tell you, but nazism is socialism - the national socialist german workers party. i get a kick out of people that just don't understand that.

whatever, same difference. but i didn't say socialism is nazism, which is what you said.

 

[Now what was it about the reading comprehension again? Now there's something to get a kick out of. 

again, you apparently missed it.

 

Norway is 22% of Scandinavia, not that a few % matters, since they don't count as Scandinavia alone, and we don't get any of their oil money. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ini other words "i'm grasping at straws"?

 

you claimed scandinavia had good welfare, which maybe it does... but of the three countries, one is oil rich and the other two have trade surpluses. simple concept really.

 

taks

[Lucius]

No thanks, if the devil has ever done anything in reality, he's hosted that site.

[taks]

so do the us. again, what's your point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, excuse me? we have a trade deficit nearing a trilliion dollars. other way around. in simple terms, that means we import more than we export. big difference. do you actually read the news?

 

taks

[random evil guy]

too many quotations...

 

so i'll just post the relevanat ones here:

 

given that most of this is philosophical, sources really aren't a big deal.

there is a difference between opinions and actual claims. your opinions are based on your claims, so you should be able to provide sources to prove them.

 

 

uh, it's still a degree, and most economists don't make diddly. lawyers, doctors and engineers, in that order, make the most money. most economists are now supply side, since it works, and that tends to imply conservative, btw...

source for both claims, please.

 

 

 

 

yes, all humans are likewise selfish. study ayn rand. worth a read.

objetivism is inane ramblings. to claim there are objective truths in a society is just foolish. moral and values are subjective...

 

 

 

sources for what? the fact that every social program in the US is overspent and about to fail?

sure. keep in mind the fact that i.e. medicare is more efficient than private insurance companies.

 

government is there to protect us, not mother us.

why?

[taks]

No thanks, if the devil has ever done anything in reality, he's hosted that site. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh, now i get it... gripe about sources till i provide one and what do we get? "oh no, i can't stand differing opinions, it may offend my sensibilities."

 

can't have your cake and eat it too. if you want sources, you're just going to have to buckle down and understand that evidence is applicable even if it doesn't support your position.

 

talk about living life in a fish bowl. do you actually read anything that opposes your world view? unbelievable. and mkreku called me narrow minded... sheesh.

 

taks

[random evil guy]

so do the us. again, what's your point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, excuse me? we have a trade deficit nearing a trilliion dollars. other way around. in simple terms, that means we import more than we export. big difference. do you actually read the news?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

sorry, forgot about that. bush f*cked the economy.

 

however, the us used to have a surplus. why couldn't they employ a universal health care then?

 

btw, your claim is that a trade surplus is necessary to provide universal health care. source please or at least some logical reasoning behind that...

Edited November 15, 2005 by random evil guy

[Lucius]

whatever, same difference.  but i didn't say socialism is nazism, which is what you said.

Not really, you just tried to explain that you said it was based on. Which you didn't actually say. Doesn't really matter which way you try to put it, we all know what you meant and hence we corrected your mistake.

 

again, you apparently missed it.

Must be horrible to be wrong, huh?

 

you claimed scandinavia had good welfare, which maybe it does... but of the three countries, one is oil rich and the other two have trade surpluses.  simple concept really.

It's called making a point, we don't get any of Norways oil money. Be they 22% or 25%, it's still their own money. What you're trying to do is to dismiss the Scandinavian welfare model by crying about Norways oil. As for the other two, we're not the only nations in the world with good exports.

[taks]

there is a difference between opinions and actual claims. your opinions are based on your claims, so you should be able to provide sources to prove them.

which i've done, and you dismissed as... evil? hehe...

 

source for both claims, please.

whatever. try the US census. 2.3 million engineers, about as many doctors and a few more laywers. go to salary.com if you'd like to find out how much engineers, at the bottom of the pile, are making... (hint: average is about 10 years and a BS degree, i'm 10 years and an MS degree).

 

objetivism is inane ramblings. to claim there are objective truths in a society is just foolish. moral and values are subjective...

there ya go, more references just "dismissed" by you.

 

isn't this just your opinion? works both ways.

 

sure. keep in mind the fact that i.e. medicare is more efficient than private insurance companies.

no it's not. it's grown 7 times faster than expected and always short, as well as marred by corruption and fraud. have you ever known anyone in the US that needed medicare help? i have, ain't pretty. btw, how about your sources.

 

why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i don't know, maybe because some of us are smart enough to take care of ourselves. not everbody wants to sit around and pray for mommy government to help us through our lives. self sufficiency, what a concept.

 

taks

[Lucius]

No thanks, if the devil has ever done anything in reality, he's hosted that site. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh, now i get it... gripe about sources till i provide one and what do we get? "oh no, i can't stand differing opinions, it may offend my sensibilities."

 

can't have your cake and eat it too. if you want sources, you're just going to have to buckle down and understand that evidence is applicable even if it doesn't support your position.

 

talk about living life in a fish bowl. do you actually read anything that opposes your world view? unbelievable. and mkreku called me narrow minded... sheesh.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never called for any sources. You have me and REG mixed up. Don't fret so much just because we corrected you before dear taks, it's not worth you getting all hysterical.

 

 

... mkreku is right, though.

[taks]

sorry, forgot about that. bush f*cked the economy.

curious what your source for that is... unemployment is at record lows, taxes are up in spite of tax cuts, our growth is sitting at 3.6%, which hasn't happened since the reagan era.

 

however, the us used to have a surplus. why couldn't they employ a universal health care then?

uh, a VERY long time ago, and our economy was VERY different then. straw man argument anyway, since we aren't there now, are we (do you need a definition for straw man?)

 

btw, your claim is that a trade surplus is necessary to provide universal health care. source please or at least some logical reasoning behind that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

show me one quote where i said it was necessary.

 

you have a small group of countries (less than 20M people) that are rich. they are rich because of a trade surplus, which allows spending on socialist concepts. countries that do not have such beneficial surpluses don't have the extra revenue and are therefore forced to rely on much higher taxes to afford such "niceties."

 

taks